//■6.2-1. 
LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 

Presented  by 

Division V.~— 

Section .(..         r   """^ 


Old  Testament  Literature. 


,vU^V  ■'  "'^^z^. 


-^        •\'0\/     ^ 


LECTURES  ON 


Tlie  Poetical  Books  of  tlie  Old  Testaiiiciit 


-^ 


\^ 


PSALMS,  SONG   OF   SOLOMON, 

PROVERBS,    ECCLESIASTES. 


—BY- 


PROF.   W.    HENRY   GREEN. 


FROM    NOTHS   OF    THE    LECTURES   I5EF0RE 


THE    MIDDLE    CLASS. 


COMPILED    FOR    THE    EXCLUSIVE    USE    OF    THE   STUDENTS    OF 
PRINCETON    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY. 


PRINTED,    NOT    PUBLISHED. 


PRINCETON   COLLEGE. 


Edwin  Fitzgeorge,  Printer,  S.  W.  Cor,  State  and  Greene  Sts.,  Trenton,  N.  J. 


1881. 


PREFA,GE. 


Tlie  Editors  of  tliese  notes  have  aimed  to  furnish  as 
full  an  outline  of  the  present  course  in  this  department 
as  practiealde  or  necessary.  Much  of  the  matter  con- 
tained in  the  edition  of  1878  has  been  omitted,  because 
it  now  is  neither  relevant  to  the  course  nor  enters  into  it. 
The  lectures  recently  added  to  the  course  are  here 
inserted.  Job,  although  belongina:  to  the  list  of  Poetical 
Books,  is  omitted  for  the  reason  that  the  full  treatment 
of  it  is  given  in  Dr.  Green's  published  work  upon  the 
subject. 

Although  errors  will  doubtless  a})pear,  every  etfort 
has  been  made  to  guard  against  them;  while  an  attempt 
has  been  made,  also,  to  secure  perspicuity,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, through  the  arrangement  of  chapters,  sections  and 
paragraphs.  It  is  due  to  Dr.  Green  to  say  that  he  is 
nowise  responsil)le  for  the  publication  of  tliis  work,  nor 
for  any  errors  it  may  contain. 

G.  F.  GREENE,  \  Editors  for  the 
D.  W.  WOODS,  j     Class  of  '85. 


Old  Testament  Literature. 


THE   POETICAL   BOOKS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


1.      GENERAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    HEBREW    POERTY. 

In  this  lecture,  introductory  to  the  course,  we  are  to 
deal  with  the  characteristics  of  0.  T.  poetry.  In  dealing 
with  this  ancient  poetry  let  us  look  for  what  is  funda- 
mental in  it.  Then  let  us  trace  its  development.  At  the 
outset  we  find  tliat  essential  charaeteristics  of  modern 
poetry  are  wanting  in  IIeV)rew  verse.  Is,  then,  the  latter 
true  poetry?  We  answer  that  if  mere  rhyme  and  rythni 
constitute  the  soul  of  verse,  then  there  is  no  IIel)rew 
poetry.  But  if  those  qualities  are  the  accident  rather 
than  essence  of  verse,  the  Hehrew  may  contain  true 
poetry.     Such  is  the  case. 

The  soul  of  verse  lies  in  the  thought  and  in  the  feeling. 
Its  form  of  expression  does  not  make  it  poetry.  The 
genius  of  the  Greek  gave  its  verse  one  form  of  expres- 
sion— that  of  the  IIel)rew  gave  its  verse  another.  Thus 
there  is  nothing  in  Hehrew  to  correspond  to  the  Greek 
drama  and  Epic.  In  Hehrew  the  harmony  is  not  of 
rythm,  but  of  periods.  Hebrew  literature,  therefore,  is 
essentiall}^  poetic  when  the  conception  in  the  author's 
mind,  rather  tlian  the  form  of  expression,  is  poetic. 

The  Epic  in  Hebrew. — Skeptics   have   sought  a   great 


E[)ic  ill  the  Pentatoncli — something  akin  to  the  Iliad. 
Not  warrantecL  The  Peutateneh  is  a  simple  narration 
of  facts.  No  luxuriant  mythology  is  there.  The  history 
of  Israel  was  so  rich  in  mighty  deeds  that  there  was  little 
left  for  the  imagination  after  their  single  narration. 
Therefore  a  prime  element  of  Epic  poetry — the  imagina- 
tion— is  wanting  in  Hebrew  verse. 

The  Drama  in  Hebrew. — Ewald  tliinks  the  drama  exists 
in  a  rudimentary  state  in  Hebrew,  e.  g.,  in  the  Song  of 
Solonxm.  and  Job.  He  likens  the  Sov(/  of  Solomon  to  Gre- 
cian comedy,  and  Job  to  tragedy.  True  view  :  The  drama 
was  unknown  to  the  Hebrews.  In  the  Song  of  Solomon  all 
the  elements  of  dramatic  poetry  are  wanting.  It  is 
lyric  throughout.  Not  even  a  plot.  In  the  case  of  Job 
there  is  more  reason  for  thinking  that  dramatic  ele- 
ments may  be  found.  True,  Job  is  written  in  dialogue 
form;  but  dialogue  does  not  constitute  tragedy.  Besides, 
there  is  neither  2)lot  nor  external  ar-tion  in  the  book. 
From  fii'st  to  last  the  action  is  internal  (i.  e.,  it  is  action 
going  on  in  Job's  heart)  and  not  external ;  and  a  tragedy 
must  possess  external  action.  When  we  view  the  theme 
(the  temptation  of  Job)  we  admit  that  it  appears  more 
like  a  tragedy.  So  we  believe  that  while  tlie  book  is  not 
a  developed  tragedy,  yet  it  possesses  tragic  elements. 
There  were  no  scenic  representations  among  the 
Hebrews. 

Classifications  of  Hebreiv  Poetry. — Some  divide  Hebrew 
poetry  into  (1.)  Lyric,  (2.)  Epic,  (3.)  Dramatic.  This 
classification  we  discard.  The  true  division  is  into  (1.) 
Lyric,  and  (2.)  Didactic  or  Aphoristic.  Shir — song — a 
lyric  poem.  This  Hebrew  term  applies  (a)  to  metrical 
compositions  in  historical  books,  (b)  psalms,  (c)  Song  of 
Sol.,  [ii)  Lamentations,  llaschil — a  didactic  poem.  This 
term  applies  to  (a)  Pror.,  (b)  Eccies.,  (c)  Job. — Lyric 
poetry  is  historically  first  in  every  nation, — as  connected 
with  the  service  of  religion. 

Extant  0.  T.  Lyric  Poems. — Passing  by  Antedeluvian 
fragments  such  as  Lamech's  lament  (Gen.  4 :  23-24.)  we 


come  (a)  to  the  blessing  of  dying  Jacob,  (b)  Song  of 
Moses  (Deut.  32,  33),  "(c)  Tiie  Mnetieth  Psalm,  (cl) 
Prophecies  of  Balaam,  (e)  Sacerdotal  blessings  (Num. 
10 :  35,  36).  (f )  Hannah's  Song  (1  Sam.  2)— an  echo  of 
sacred  songs  then  used  in  the  sanctuary — is  also  lyric. 
This,  together  with  references  in  Num.  and  Josh,  to  col- 
lections of  poetic  compositions  then  extant  lead  us  to 
infer  that  there  were  many  poems  which  are  now  lost. 

Golden  Period  of  Hebrew  Poetry/. — This  was  the  age  of 
David  and  Solomon,  of  course.  There  was  a  material  and 
spiritual  preparation  for  this,  in  the  work  of  Samuel. 
iSamuel  was  the  father  of  the  prophets.  But  outside  of 
this  preparation  in  an  age  previous  to  his,  David  possessed 
natural  endowments  for  being  the  sweet  singer  of  Israel. 
God  used  his  piety  and  poetic  taste  in  preparing  the 
songs  for  the  sanctuary.  Solomon  was  gifted  as  his 
father  had  been.  He  wrote  3000  proverbs,  and  1005 
Songs. 

The  corrupt  age  which  followed  the  reign  of  Solomon 
was  unfavorable  to  poetry.  During  the  age  of  the 
prophets  there  were  only  occasional  songs.  Pss.  47  and 
48  are  referred  to  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat.  The  refor- 
mation following  the  Exile  gave  us  Lamentations,  the 
only  O.  T.  poem  of  that  age.  With  this  age  0.  T.  poetry 
ceased.     There  are  no  true  Maccabean  psalms. 

2.       SPECIAL    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    HEBREW    POETRY. 

Hebrew  poetry  was  sung,  and  accompanied  by  musical 
instruments.  Hence  there  must  have  been  some  sort  of 
harmony  in  its  flow.  It  is  disputed,  however,  whether 
there  was  versification  or  not.  Philo  and  Josephus 
speak  of  discovering  ordinary  Greek  mitres  in  Hebrew,  e. 
g,,  trimeters  and  strophes,  pentameters  and  hexameters. 
The  song  in  Deut.  22,  and  the  song  at  the  Red  Sea  were 
said  to  contain  hexameters.  Eusebius  speaks  of  dis- 
covering trimeters.  But  these  statements  are  mere  gen- 
eralities ;  and  as  no  specific  examples  are  given  they 
possess  but  little  weight. 


Attempts    to    Discover  Metres  in  Hebrew    Verse;    Three 
Chsses. 

1.  Those  who  s()iii>'ht  to  discover  tlie  (4 reek  verse 
in  the  0.  T.  (1.)  The  first  sdiolar  of  this  chiss  was 
Francis  (loniar  (1568-ir)51).  His  idea  was  that  the 
versification  in  Hebrew  is  a  mixture  of  the  methods  of 
Roman,  Greek,  etc.  The  fault  of  this  principle  is  tliat  it 
is  contrarv  to  all  laws  of  ])rosody,  and  l)esides  it  would 
fir  prose  as  well  as  poctrv.  (2.)  Otliers  alter  the  text  in 
order  to  make  it  fit  the  Greek  system  of  verse.  (3.)  An 
English  clergyman— J.  C.  Hare  (1796-1854)— sought  to 
discover  iambics  and  trochaicsin  Hebrew  verse.  In  order 
to  do  this  he  disregarded  the  s^-llaldes,  and  the  Mazoretic 
pointing.     This  method  is  now  generally  abandoned. 

2.  Those  who  tried  to  consti'uct  Hebrew  verse  from  mea- 
sures found  in  Chaldee  and  other  cognate  languages.  Sir 
Wm.  Jones  and  the  Orientalist  Graliam  tried  this  method, 
but  they  were  forced  to  assume  so  many  errors  that  they 
aban(h'»ned  it. 

3.  Those  who  tried  to  construct  the  measures  from  a. 
system  of  accents,  accented  syllables  being  looked  upon 
as  long,  and  unaccented,  short.  The  principle  is  unsys- 
tematic and  arbitrary.  Hence  it  is  abandoned.  Many, 
however,  insist  that  some  kind  of  metre  exists,  and 
charge  the  difficulty  of  finding  it  upon  the  pointing. 
Yet  the  various  lengths  of  the  linos  prove,  outside  of  the 
pointing,  that  Hebrew  poetry  is  so  much  less  constrained 
than  that  of  other  languages  that  its  entire  construction 
is  different  from  theirs. 

Our  last  resort  is  therefore  to  believe  simply  that 
Ilelirew  verse  is  less  constrained  and  artificial  than 
modern  verse.  Some  scholars  have  suspected  the  exist- 
ence of  rhyme,  where  the  lines  have  ended  in  the  same 
suffixes, — as  in  Is.  25:  21.  But  this  rhyme  was  probably 
unintended.  Now  what  distinguishes  Hebrew  poetry  from 
prose?  There  must  be  certain  distinguishing  features  to 
mark  the  expression  of  the  loftier  thoughts  of  the  poet. 
Hence  tlie  external  form  of  poetry  must  differ  in  some 


fifv^o   >f(n^^  uwVt^   ru<U^'^,  (^Cit^hij^yxM^ 


respects  always  from  prose.  For  one  thing  the  assonance 
of  words  in  poetry  is  fonnd  to  be  more  frequent  than  in 
prose. 

Distinguish /')}[/  J^eatarcs  of  Hebrcio  Poefri/. — Hebrew 
poetry  difters  from  prose  (1)  as  to  Diction,  (2)  as  to  Verse 
(i.  e.  peculiai'ity  of  the  sentences),  (3)  as  to  the  Stanza  (i. 
e.  peculiar  structure  of  the  poem  as  a  whole.) 

1.  Diction. — Words  are  used  in  verse  Avhich  are  stiff 
and  pedantic  in  prose.  Classes  of  words  which  mark 
Hebrew  poetry :  (a)  words  used  in  poetry  whicli  are 
never  used  in  prose,  e.  g.,  Amer  (word.)  Hebrew  poetry 
sometimes  uses  Arabic  or  Aramaic  forms,  (b)  Unpro- 
saic  forms  of  words  used  in  prose,  (e.  g.  Elohim  in 
sing.)  (c)  Unusual  constructions  or  combinations  foreign 
to  the  usage  of  prose. 

2.  Verse. — This  distinction  is  a  distinction  as  to  the 
sentences.  The  poet  does  not  express  his  thoughts  in 
long  periods,  Init  in  brief  sentences.  There  is  a  stroke 
and  a  rebound  in  tlie  same  line.  In  other  poetry  there 
are  alliteration,  measures,  rhyme,  etc.  In  Hebrew  there 
is  a  parallelism — beyond  that  no  fixedness.  Lines  have 
no  fixed  length.  jSTo  unwieldy  length,  however.  The 
average  line  has  from  seven  to  ten  syllables.  The  short- 
est has  three,  the  longest,  fifteen. 

3.  Stanza — Alphabetic  Psalms. — These  alphabetic  psalms 
are  peculiar  in  that  their  length  is  determined  by  the 
alphabet.  In  some  of  these  there  is  only  a  trace  of  the 
alphabet,  as  in  Pss.  9,  10.  Some  of  these  omit  one  or 
two  letters.  Some  critics  wrongly  say  that  verses  are 
lost  out  with  these  lost  letters.  In  other  psalms  of  the 
class  the  alphabetic  structure  is  adhered  to  only  so  far  as 
it  suited  the  sulyect.  Some  repeat  each  letter  in  several 
verses  (e.  g.  Ps.  119  repeats  each  letter  8  times.)  Some- 
times each  half  verse  is  begun  with  letters  in  order  (e.  g. 
Pss.  Ill  and  112.) 

Parallelism  of  Clauses. — This  is  the  main  characteristic 
of  Hebrew  poetry.  We  adopt  Lowth's  classification  of  par- 
allelisms, viz.,  (1)  si/noni/mous,  (2)  antithetic,  and  (3)   s)/)i- 


10 


thetlc.  Wc  also  distinguisli  between  perfect  and  imper- 
fect parallelism,  i.  e.  whether  the  parallelism  is  complete 
or  not. 

(1.)  Synonymous  parallelism: — Wliere  the  two  clauses 
each  contain  the  same  thought  in  ditlerent  Avords.  (E. 
g.  Prov.  7:  2.)    /J.   //^   ^ 

(2.)  Antithetic  parallelisms : — Where  the  thought  in 
the  first  clause  is  illustrated  in  the  second  clause  l»y  its 
opposite.     (E.  g.  Prov.  14  :  1.)    X,S4^ 

(3.)  Synthetic  parallelisms: — Where  the  thouglit  in 
the  second  clause  adds  something  to  that  of  the  first. 
(E.  g.  Ps.  19:  7, — "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect — con- 
A''erting  the  soul  :  the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure — 
making  wise  the  simple." 


^  '  (-■      ' 


■w-t'  7 


t 


y\/i^'-M^,  /y     ^  6}  '-  ^/^^^  ^"^ 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  PSALMS. 

1.      INTRODUCTION    TO    THE    PSALMS. 

Names    Used  for  the  Collection  of  Psalms. — The  IIol)reAV 


;-2:iJJ-ii^^ 


name  is  Tliilhn — liymns.    In  the  ]S^.  T.  the  word  Psalmoi   -  / 

is  used— "Book  of  Psahiis,"  (Lnke  24:  44.)  In  Ps.  72  '^'^ 
the  term  T^ph'dah  is  used,  some  say  for  the  wliole  collec- 
tion, meaning  praijers.  The  term  for  individnal  psalms 
used  tiftj-seven  times  is  Jlizmor — psalm.  This  term  is 
/w  speciallj'   used  to  denote  psalms  intended  to  be  accom- 

.  panied  bv  music.     Often  the  c/e.s^Vy??.  and  a.w^Ao/- of  the  psalm 

0^  are  mentioned  with  its  name.    Shir  is  often  associated  witli 

^C  3I!zrnor  in  the  case  of  psalms  that  are  to  be  recited  with-  y         .     ^^ 

jlfi  out  the  instrumental  accompaniment.   A<^(>.  ^Mrtx.ic^t-/^^^^''^^  ' 

.  if  I,  'y\ij  '  Songs  of  Degrees. — There  are  fifteen  psalms  grouped  to-  ^-^  ^^ 
'gether  and  called  "Songs  of  Degrees."  Why  so  named? 
(1)  Some  say  :  Sung  as  the  singers  ascended  the  Temple 
steps,  a  psalm  for  each  step.  (2)  Otliers :  It  refers  to  the 
annual  march  to  the  Temple,  during  which  they  were 
sung,  and  they  marked  the  progressive  steps  of  the  pil- 
grimage. (3)  Another  view  :  So  named  from  the  charac- 
ter of  the  poetry — one  verse  completed  in  the  next.  (To 
illustrate  vid.  Pss.  121,  123,  124.) 

Titles    for     Individual    Psalms. — (1)     3Iaschil    {an    in.  -  3  i-  •  ^ 
structive  i)salm,)  occurs  in  the  title  of  thirteen  psalms.     (2) 
/  (>  /r^Michtam  means   golden   jisalm.      The    verb    from  which 
^  it    is    derived,     [Katam)    signifies     to    hide,   or     to    con- 

11 


ccal.       Hence    the    iioim    means    .'/oW,    treasure.       It    is  , 

Ibiind    in    Pss.    10,    56,-60,    etc.      (3)    {Shk/f/niu)},  i'vom^'^^^^-^ 
verb  ShagaJi — to  wander)  means  a  psalm  of  transe/rcsskm, 
so  called,  Dr.  Alexander   says,  because  the    psahn  was 
written    durinu'    David's   wandering'    in    the    wilderness_ 
Others:   The  title  is  given  because  of  irregular  style  of  versi- 
fy   I  fication.  (Ps.  7  is  an  example.) 
y^n^Wj^  Notation  of  the  Psalms  In  LA^Sand  //f'irew— There  are 
&_>A}\/^lf*^^     150 different compositioiis  both  in  Ifehrewandin  the  LXX. 
■"^   The  enumeration  differs.      Some  psalms,  given    as   one 
,-v    .^tf, .           psalm  in  the  LXX,  are  divided  into  two  psalms  in  the 
"^                       Hebrew  and  rice  versa.     How  account  for  this?     Answer  : 
Some  psalms  have  no  titles,  and  the  spaces  which  separate 
them  may  have  been   overlooked   by    tlie   transcribers. 
But  the  number  is  the  same  in  both  versions.     Pss.  9  i*c 
10,  and  114  &   115  are  united  in  one  psalm  in   each  case 
in  the  LXX,  while   Pss.   116  and  147  are  each,  in  the 
LXX,    divided    into    two   psalms.       Thus   the    nundjer 
remains  the  same.     AVhen  the  title  is  wanting  there  is 
no  indication  where  one  psalm  ends  and  the  following 
^ , ,, ,  ^             begins.   <,, .-  V  .'  ■•  •  v)^--^V.\  If  Y^U^  r.i  tw...  <.^K--h  .  <  e^-.^r.M  ^ 
.    i^    r:  /  -     Authors   of   Psabns. — Li    more    than    100    psalms    the 
.     -^  names  ot  authors  are  given.    David  wrote  mnetA'  psalms. 
-'-^t--'^     ■'    ^  Other   authors    are    Solomon,    M(^ses,    Asaph,    Sons    of 
Korah,  Etthan  and  Heman.     F<jrty  otk  are  anonymous, 
and  the  time  of  production  unknown.  The  whole  collection 
is  usually  called  "  David's  psalms,"  because  he  wrote  most 
of  them  and  thus  set  the  style  for  others,     {cf  I.Chron., 
Chap.  6.)    j(^AA.(L^ui  cLuO^^itUA  6o4^>>>^  ?rlux^ 
Occasion  of  David's  Psalms. — We  know  positively  the 
'JOj^iK  »An«^       cause  of  many,  and  of *others  it  may  be  inferred  from 
"^'V)  ,      ^    the  character  of  the  psalm.     The  contradiction  between 
i^^^*^^^]^     a  psalm  and  its  title  shows  that  the  title  was  not  an  infer- 
i^"**         ^,^   ence  from  its  contents  by  a  later  writer.     Kuenen  falsely 
1^""^  J  .i^ji.v^laims  that  David  had  no  such  s[)iritual  knowledge  as  is 
^-^''^'^''^^^gijOAA/Umplied  in  the  psalms,  nor  did  his  contemporaries  ;  hence 
"*'''                  none  of  the  psalms  written  in  David's  time. 

Pobertson  Smith's  Claim. — He  claims  that  many  psalms 


ililiMillUJiiiii.    --■<-  /'  ^trt^   -j 

/  0 


/ 


( 


0 


^'^^U  U-y^A^f^  IM^  cc^nj  i^r  ^  A^  . 

rl^U<.4d.v\v^    V'^^Z-IL-t^iLA    tKA^^'^^'^cM^    Oi/^.fyu.A 


^  ^^ilA 


VlcIju 


13 

ascribed  to  David  are  clearly  not  his.     His  argument  is 

as  follows:    \/ut^     P^.^i^l^^.y^^^'^M'.-A.i 

(1.)  The  LXXascribesiifteen'inore  psalms  to  David  than 
the  Hebrew.  So  Smith  says  the  tendency  was  to  ascrilx' 
more  and  more  to  David.  There  are  four  ascribed  to 
liiui  in  Hebrew  whicli  are  not  in  theLXX.  Answer:  (1) 
They  correspond  generally.  Hence  there  is  a  strong  sup- 
position of  correct  ascription.  (2)  Musical  terms  are 
always  given  in  the  LXX,  and  in  their  }tropei'  place, 
thongli  translated  ditferently  to  the  Hebrew  meaning. 

(2.)  He  also  claims  tliat  individual  psalms  exliibit  incon-      ■  •       • 
sistencies,     (1)  E.   g.,  Pss.   20,  21  profess  to  be  spoken   v- >-■  ■'? '^^/n 
to  a  kino-   and  not  hii  a  kiuii;,  tliouo'h  David  is  a  king  and  x/jx<-''-'/ ; ""     , 
the  author.     Answer:  Its  author  represented  the  people.    ■J^-^-*  ■ 
All  the  nation   could  not  write  it.      There  was    neces- 
sarily a  single  author,  and  David  wrote  for  the  })eople,  as 
their   representative.       (2)    Another   psalm,    he    claims,    _Pjj.{/ur 
mentions  Abiinilecli    as  king  of  Gath  while  Abimilech '^^^T^T^^ 
lived  in  a  later  age.     Answer:     Abimilech  was  a  generic   u 
name    (like  Ctesar — emperor.)     (3)  Certain  psalms  refer -G.-fWv^  "*  ^*;;"  / 
^■^1^     to  "building  the  walls   of  Jerusalem."      These,   Sniith  V^J<  ^  ^-^  |W^'^'^ 
^  thiidvs,   must    have    been    written    after    its   destruction.  '\.a\^^'^^'^'^ 

o^(K^'    Answer:  Xot  correct,  for  the  word  is  build — not  re-build.  ^>pTT  y^n-^-- 
*jCsi(i*^,    ^4)  Another  claim  of  inconsistency  is  in  the  case  of  the  ' 
'-'^^',     psalms   of  Asa})h.      These,   it  is   said,   must  have   been 
written  in  the  time  of  Asa|)h.     Answer  :   Asaph  was  a 
family  name,  like  Israel.     Therefore  they  may  have  been     ,  \v^tVc>.Uj. 

written  anv  time  during  the  existencj  of  the  family,  and    '   "'    ^J^)   QuJ, 
by  any  meinber  of  it.   -^  ^^'''^  f  ^^^  ^.k<^\'^  c^^  ' ^^^  V  j^^ 

^     /       /       DivisioH  of  ihc  Pmlms  Into  Boohs. — There  are  five  such' 

divisions,  viz.:  (T.)  Bk.  L  contains  psalms  1-41,  inclus- ^y»,»      '•■' v 
^T^^'  ivc.     (11.)   Psalms  42-72.     (HI.)    Psalms   73-89.      (IV.)  ^V^.^^^/ 
^"^11  Psalms  90-106.     (V.)  Psalms  107-150.-^^^  ^J^-  U^i  w!Ua<^ 

Bk.  I.  (psalms  1-42.)     These  are  written  exclusively    '  H 
by  David ;  and  as  the  name  Jehovah  occurs  272  times  in  /  i.^  "^S :i 
the   book   and   that   of  Elohini   only  fiteen    times   they 
are  called  Jehovah  pscdms.     In   regard  to  this  variation 
of  the  names  of  the  deity  some  have  thought_that  the 


wLv^5^   ■     ■  .^--u^- 


'^  "--;'/   t/f^v^^  Elohiui  psalms  were  written  at  a  time  when   tlie  name 
^'tu.«.Lj'\    Jehovah  was  lield  in  such  re\'crenee  as  not  to  he  used. 
-  lU'fwu^A/^'^^'^'  '^''^'^^  Jeliovah  more  distinctly  expressed  God's  per- 
/  sonality,  and  was  thus  more  in  danger  of  hecoming  de- 

graded.    Hence  tlie  compositions  of  certain  periods  con- 
tain Eloliim  rather  than  Jehovah. 

Bk.  II.  (psalms  42-72.)     Elohlm  psahns,  ior  the  name 
Elohim   occurs   164  times,  and   Jehovah  hut  30   times. 
.U.hA^'^    Pss.    42-49    are    hy    David's    singers;     Ps.    50    is    hv 
]\ij  Asapii ;  Pss.  51-7^.are  hy  ^{ivid,  Avhich  have  no  titles) 

•"^*'^'  except  Pss.  m,  67  and  7li"pl.  72 Tri)y  Solomon. 

Bk.  III.  (Psahiis  73-89^)  Elohim  ami  Jehomh  psalms. 
Elohim  used  43  times,  and  Jehovah  44  times.  Pss.  73- 
83  are  by  Asaph ;  Pss.  84,  85,  87,  88,  are  hy  the  Sons 
of  Korali ;  ps.  86  is  by  David. 

Bk.  IV.  (Psalms  90-106.)  Jvlnaih  psalms.  The  name 
Elohim  does  not  occur. 

Bk.  V.  (Psalms  107-150.)  Jchwah.  psalms.  Elohim 
occurs  only  7  times.  In  Bks.  \N .  and  V.  the  name  Jehovah 
occurs  339  times. 

Mlscellancoas  Remarks. — The  })salms  which  follow  the 
90th  arc  all  anonymous  except  Pes.  101,  103,  and  sixteen 
psalms  in  Bk.  V.  None  of  the  musical  titles  in  the  first 
three  hooks  are  to  he  found  in  the  last  two,  except  "  To 
the  chief  musician,"  in  a  few  places,  and  Ifaschil  and 
Selah  once  or  twice.  The  first  psalm  is  a  preface  psalm  ; 
the  last  is  a  doxology.  Ps.  90,  composed  by  Moses,  is 
the  oldest  in  the  collection.  The  same  psalm  is  occasion- 
ally repeated  in  these  difierent  books  with  a  slight  vari- 
ation. E.  g.  Pss.  14  and  53.  Jehovah  occurs  in  Ps.  14 
where  Elohim  is  found  in  Ps.  53.  The  closing  verses  of 
Ps.  40  are  nearly  the  same  as  those  of  Ps.  70. 

Why  are  there  precisely  five  hooks,  when  there  is  no 
obvious  principle  of  division  between  Bks.  IV.  and  V.  ? 
The  answer  is  that  it  was  sought  to  make  a  division  of 
the  collection  into  five  books  in  order  to  produce  a  cor- 
respondence to  the  five  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  Ileng- 
stenberg  says  the  psalms  are  arranged  chronologically. 


Ox. 


J^../. t^-^ ^^ '  ,..  .  -/ 


15 


Delitzscli  says  tlie  order  of  psalms  is  due  to  the  oeeur- 
rence  of  particular  words  or  sentences  in  those  ininiedi- 
atelj  succeeding  each  other.  The  doxology  at  the  end 
of  each  hook  is  no  part  of  the  individual  psalm,  hut  is 
used  merely  to  mark  the  division.  There  is  a  doxology 
in  I.  Chron.  16,  which  proves  that  the  present  division 
into  hooks  as  ahove  exhibited  was  then  recognized.  Is 
the  present  collection  tlie  first  collection  of  psalms  ever 
made?  Smith  says  no,  that  David  wrote  one  before,  and 
tiiat  our  collection  is  a  part  of  that  previous  collection. 
This  view  we  reject.  In  regard  to  the  age  of  our  collec- 
tion of  psalms  it  may  be  said  that  the  psalm  occurring 
in  I.  Chron.  1(3:  8-36  is  made  up  of  parts  of  various 
psalms  (Pss.  105,  96,  106),  properly  joined  together,  and 
in  such  a  way  as  to  lead  us  to  infer  that  the  whole  col- 
lection was  then  extant,  as  well  as  the  present  division. 
This  is  op[)Osed  to  Robertson  Smith's  view  as  above 
stated. 

Views  of  tJiC  Critics. — In  opposition  to  these  we  insist 
that  the  entire  collection  was  put  in  its  present  shape  in 
the  time  of  Ezra.  It  certainly  was  not  in  the  time  of  the 
Exile.  IIow  was  the  collection  put  together  ?  Tliere 
are  different  views :  (1)  One  theory  is  that  there  were 
various  cc^.Uections,  and  that  the  collection  as  we  have  it 
consists  of  a  blending  of  these.  But  there  is  no  satis- 
factory proof  of  the  assumption  on  which  the  tlieory  is 
based.  (2)  Another  view  is  that  one  book  was  written, 
and  then  a  second  added,  and  so  on,  in  order.  The 
falsity  of  this  appears  from  the  systematic  variation  of 
the  names  Jehovah  and  Eloliim,  as  well  as  from  the  posi- 
tion of  the  doxologies.  (3)  It  is  also  sometimes  claimed 
that  Bks.  I.  and  II.  formed  the  original  collection  and 
make  a  book  by  themselves.  This  they  infer  from  the 
last  verse  of  Ps.  72.  These  two  books  seem  to  close  the 
psalms  of  David.  They  also  infer  that  Solomon  was  the 
collector  of  these,  since  Ps.  72  is  his.  But  there  is  no 
evidence  of  this.  Nor  can  we  affirm  that  Bks.  I.,  II., 
and  III.   w^ere   originally  one  collection.      In   fact  it   is 


16 


impossible  for  us  to  ascertain  tlie  deiinite  steps  of  tlie 
arrangement  of  the  collection. 

Do  any  of  the  psalins  belong  to  the  Maccabean  period? 
The  74th  and  124th  are  sometimes  suggested,  as,  e.  g. 
by  Calvin;  and  some  critics,  as  Oldshausen,  think  that 
most  of  the  psalms  belong  to  that  period.  We  reply  : 
(1)  N^one  of  the  psalms  correspond  with  the  character  of 
the  Maccal)ean  period,  and  (2)  the  canon  was  closed 
before  that  age.  Tlie  LXX  was  in  existence  during  the 
Maccabean  age,  and  is  frequently  (pioted  in  that  age.  In 
regard  to  variations  in  the  case  of  psaims  tljat  are  re- 
peated, they  are  always  unimportant  and  can  be  explained 
Avithout  necessitating  a  belief  that  they  are  in  any  case 
uninspired. 

Qucsfioii  as  to  Arcurac;/  of  fhe  Text. — This  question 
arises,  (1)  from  the  fact  tliat  these  writings  were  natur- 
ally  liable  to  verbal  changes  during  transcription,  as  is 
seen  to  be  the  case  with  modern  hymnx;  and  (2)  as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  comparison  of  i)salms  which  occur 
twice  reveals  a  large  number  of  variaticuis.  There  are 
ditferent  views  upon  the  subject :  (a)  Some  say  these 
variations  are  due  to  textual  errors.  (I))  Others  cor- 
rectly regard  each  of  these  varying  psalms  as  original, 
and  the  variations  purposely  introduced,  perhaps  by  the 
author  himself  (c)  In  regard  to  the  alphabetic  psalms, 
the  correct  view  concerning  the  fact  of  occasional  devia- 
tions from  the  alphabetic  system  is  that  in  them  the 
author  purposely  fails  to  adhere  to  the  system  so  closely 
as  to  allow  himself  to  l)e  trammelled. 

2^     MESSIANIC    CONTENTS    OF    THE    PSALMS. 

The  Prophetic  Element  Iti  the  Psedms. — What  preparation 
is  found  in  the  psalms  for  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  ? 
There  is  less  positive  prophecy  concerning  the  Messiah 
here  than  in  the  Prophets.  This  results  from  the  differ- 
ent aims  of  the  l)ooks.  The  leading  aim  of  tlie  pro- 
phetical books  is  to  set  forth  prophecies,  and  to  place 
certain    new   truths   before   the    inner   consciousness   of 


y  0-iQa\^  Un^^^    ^t^<•,/x  >  y  ?,4^y  u^  CluI^^^^cmaJ-   r^^^tnu . 


(W. 


cu-^ 


4^  -/^^TN-tft-ft^    f''^Ji4 


^^MM^xt^  ^Uw^^^^i^  'Z  *<''H-«.t^^ii:,uW  «-^ ^lui'i  ii<^^ 


iA^>-(Mj^  CluJ^S^  yC^^^  ^'^    ^/ />-"-- .._^...„^.,^ 


"-  S. 


17 


God's  people.  The  leadiiiii;  aim  of  the  poetical  books  is 
not  so  much  to  iiuike  new  disclosures  of  truth  as  to  bring 
home,  explicitly  or  implicitly,  truth  already  communi- 
cated. But  new  elements  of  truth  are  not  wanting  in 
the  psalms.  This  growth  of  ideas  previously  imjtarted 
is  not  the  same  as  a  logical  development  of  ideas  or 
principles  already  laid  down,  but  a  process  of  unfolding 
regularly  from  stage  to  stage.  There  is  here  an  incre- 
ment as  well  as  an  evolution.  The  former  must  precede 
the  latter.  Tearing  open  a  bud  d(U'S  not  give  us  a  flower. 
There  must  be  a  constant  addition  of  substance  to  the 
bud  as  it  gradually  unfolds  under  the  operation  of  the 
laws  of  growth.  In  i»roi)hecy  the  ;/<'//' predominates ;  in 
the  psalms  and  other  [)oetical  books  the  old.  Yet  each 
occurs  ill  both.  There  are  therefore  certain  elements  of 
prophetic  knowledge  in  the  psalms  whicli  are  found 
nowhere  else. 

Opinions  as  to  the  Doctrine  of  the  3Iessiah  in  the  Psalms. — 
There  are  three  views:  (1)  That  there  is' no  explicit 
reference  to  the  Messiah  in  the  whole  collection.  (2) 
Not  only  every  psalm,  but  every  poetical  book  has  refer- 
ence to  the  Messiah.  (3)  A  middle  ground  between 
these  extremes. 

In  our  view  there  are  Messianic  references  only  in  par- 
ticular psalms,  and  these  do  not  form  a  distinct  class. 
They  are  not  to  be  sundered  from  the  rest.  Instead  of 
being  reduced  to  the  level  of  the  other  psalms,  thoy  are 
to  be  regarded  as  an  integral  part  of  a  system  of  thought 
and  feeling.  They  are  the  crowning  point  of  a  pyramid 
supported  by  all  beneath.  They  are  the  foci  where  all 
the  rays  meet  in  luminous  points  of  light.  The  Messi- 
anic teachings  of  the  psalms  have  not  been  arbitrarily  or 
spasmodically  injected,  but  are  interwoven  as  radical 
parts  of  the  texture,  and  form  the  most  important  part 
of  the  whole  book.  The  entire  O.  T.  is  preparatory  to 
the  coming  of  Christ,  and  indeed  all  revelation  tends  to 
this  point.  Such  teaching  is  found,  not  so  much  in  its 
isolated  passages,   as  in  the  O.    T.  viewed  as  a  whole.. 

3 


18 

Thus  in  the  Pi'oplicts  siuhleii  n'limii.st's  into  tlie  faturc  do 
not  stand  apart  from  other  teachings.  Likewise  it  is 
easy  to  traee  currents  of  thought  running  through  tlie 
j)sa]nis,  even  where  [thiin  Hashes  of  i)ro}»hecy  are  hicking, 
which  set  toward  and  culminate  in  the  Messianic  idea, 
and  thus  nud<e  the  colh'ction  an  integral  part  in  the  one 
continuous  scheme  of  Messianic  prophecy. 

The  Two-Fold  Belathii  JJnfohJcd  oi  Ihc  P..y/////.v._Thc 
i^^^jJyL  psalms  ^  are  utterances  of  worship  where  distracting 
thoughts  are  excluded.  God  and  man  are  brought  face 
to  face.  And  in  producing  this  effect  firo  rdaiioiis  are 
presented, — (a)  man's  relation  to  God,  and  (h)  God's  rela- 
tion to  man.     These  are  distinct  but  correlative. 

HoiT  This  Two-Fold  Belatiou  is  Presented. — Man  may  Ite 
regarded,  (1)  Passively,  in  his  privileges,  as  a  creature 
endowed  of  God;  or  (2)  Actireb/,  in  his  duties  as  a  ser- 
vant of  God,  the  subject  of  His  law.  In  this  latter  aspect 
he  may  be  viewed  either  (a)  as  in  the  heat  of  conflictj  or 
(b)  as  in  the  position  of  a  conqueror  of  evil.  If  we  seek 
in  each  of  these  three  regards  the  two  relations  above 
described,  (viz.,  man's  relation  to  God,  and  God's  rela- 
tion to  man),  we  discover  six  ideas.  They  are  tri[»le 
correlates  in  the  sphere  of  God's  relation  to  man,  and 
may  be  thus  tabulated  : 

I.  (a.)  Mau  the  creature  endowed  by  God. 
(b.)  God  the  creator  and  benefactor  of  man. 
II.  (a.)  The  righteous  beset  by  his  foes. 
(b.)  God  his  deliverer 
III.  (a.)  The  righteous  victorious  by  God's  delivering  aid. 

(b.)  Mau  without  God  failing,  though  possessed  of  everj' 
earthly  advantage. 

These  six  ideas  are  the  fcnindations  of  the  Messianic 
teachings  of  the  peetical  books.  The  Messiah  is  not 
mentioned  in  those  books  in  any  other  aspect  than  tliose 
exhibited  in  the  above  scheme.  They  all  culminate  in 
the  Messianic  idea.  The  Messiah  is  approached  both 
from  the  divine  and  hunuin  side.  Those  psalms  which 
a[»proach  from  the  divine  side  are  less  consciously  Mes- 
sianic ;  and  although  they  contain  Messianic  ideas,  it  is 


vfe^^^  U/VY(  ""^^^  -X  t^  /(] 


t^y-^i-u'^^ 


J^.  .  ^L  H  rtJU^^    ^^^J  <^*^^   "^^^  '^'''^ 


c^-^^d^"- 


19 


not  clear  tliat  the  writer  so  intended  them.  Let  us  sec 
how  these  remarks  are  borne  out  by  the  study  of  par- 
ticuhir  psahns. 

These  Six  Ideas  in  Particuldr  Psalms. — I.  (a)  Man  lifted 
into  the  Messianic  sphere  by  super-human  end(nvments. 
When  limits  are  lost  sig-ht  of,  and  the  divine  l)Ounty 
takes  its  dimensions  oidy  from  the  [)Ower  of  God  to  give, 
the  subject  rises  above  the  sphere  of  ordinary  men  and 
can  apply  only  to  the  Messiah.  Thus  Ps.  8,  if  not  thor- 
oughly Messianic,  at  least  trembles  on  the  verge  of  the 
Messianic  idea,  and  is  certainly  by  St.  Paul  developed 
into  full  Messianic  dimensions.  The  psalms,  being  pre- 
dominantly })ractica],  api)roach  most  naturally  from  the 
human  side;  other  poetical  l>ooks,  which  are  more  s})ecu- 
lative,  from  the  divine  side. 

(b.)  But  the  thought  of  God  relative  to  His  creatures 
comes  within  the  range  of  what  belongs  to  God's  Son. 
Thus  Pss.  102,  97,  are  cpioted  in  Hchreirs  in  application 
to  Clirist.  This  is  done  not  merely  by  accommodation, 
but  Christ's  claims  are  argued  from  them.  Jehovah 
coming  into  relation  to  man  in  the  (J.  T.  is  the  Son  of 
God  of  the  New.  So  are  the  Aih/el  and  the  Word  of 
Jehovah,  which  we  find  more  developed  in  the  wisdom  of 
God  (P vow  8) — regarded  by  many  able  commentators  as 
a  distinct  person,  viz.,  the  Messiah. 

II.  (a)  The  righteous  beset  by  foes,  with  attributes  or 
results  transcending  the  human,  shaped  largely  by  the 
typical  experience  (^f  David  himself.  In  Ps.  22,  which 
Strauss  pronounced  the  programme  of  the  crucifixion, 
the  removal  of  limitations  is  al)solute.  It  is  partial,  in 
Ps.  16,  declared  by  Peter  to  be  fulfilled  only  in  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ;  in  Ps.  40,  from  which  the  author  of 
Hebrews  develops  tlie  inherent  merit  of  Christ's  sacri- 
fice ;  in  P.^s.  69,  109,  which  likewise  mediate  between  the 
merely  human  and  the  exclusively  Messianic.  Those 
which  represent  the  Messiah  as  a  sufferer  exhilnt  his 
2)riesfhood,  and  in  connection  with  it  his  prophetic  office. 
The   extreme    suff'eriny-s   issue  in    the    salvation   of   the 


20 

worUl,  Ps.  22,  but  are  not  ox[)1icitlv  said  to  be  vicarious; 
and  it  is  obiMlieuce  ratlier  tljan  substitution  wliich  is  j)re- 
dicted  of  him.  ((;/".  Ps.  22:  22  with  Ps.  40:  7.)  The 
vicarious  character  of  His  sufferings  is  reserv^'d  for  a 
prophetic  book — Is.  53. 

(b.)  Correlative  to  a  suffering  rigliteous  cnie  is  a  deliver- 
ing God.  Job,  as  a  sufferer,  was  a  distinguished  type  of 
the  Messiali ;  but  the  outburst  of  his  faith  (Job  19), 
though  not  perhaps  consciously  directed  to  Christ,  has 
been  in  all  ages  ai)})lied  to  llini  by  the  Church  as  the 
true  Redeemer. 

III.  The  struggle  between  the  ser[>ent  and  the  seed  of 
the  woman  was  to  reach  its  acme  in  Christ,  whose  con- 
test, thougli  different  in  manner  and  result  from  that  of 
the  ordinary  descendants  of  Adam,  would  be  similar  in 
kind.  The  serpent  was  to  bruise  His  heel ;  though  the. 
strife-would  not  terminate  in  this,  but  in  the  full  triuujpli 
of  the  seed  of  the  wonum.  Thus,  in  the  psalms,  we 
meet  with  : 

(a.)  The  righteous  triumplumt.  Hero  we  see  the  issue 
of  the  contest  with  evil.  David  and  Solomon,  from  per- 
sonal experience  and  official  position,  are  eminent  types 
of  Christ  in  this  respect.  They  were  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed lieads  of  the  kingdom  while  at  the  zenith  of  its 
prosperity,  temporal  and  spiritual.  The  conflict  with 
evil,  carried  on  by  God's  lielp,  issued  in  success.  Thus, 
in  Ps.  2,  the  Lord's  Annointed  is  represented  as  trium- 
phant over  the  combined  hosts  of  his  enemies.  ,^  Ps.  72 
pictures  the  peace  of  Messiah's  reign  in  the  tranquility 
of  Soh)mon's;  and  as  the  submission  rendered  to  Him  is 
voluntary  and  loyal,  it  is  re[)resented  in  Ps.  45  and  in 
Solomon's  Song  under  the  figure  of  a  marriage.  In  Ps. 
110  new  dignity  is  added  to  the  monarch  who  is  set  forth 
not  oidy  as  a  triumphant  king,  but  as  a  priest  like  Alel- 
chizedek,  one  with  unrestricted  sacerdotal  privileges,  of 
near  approach  to  God,  one  who  has  a  permanent  seat  at 
God's  right  hand,  and  is  a  priest  forever. 

(1>.)    And    lastly,    the    kingdom    may    be    viewed    as 


^  JIAajlM^^ '^ -^^"^  "^ ' '''  ''^ 


<^i_j<i  Lu<^ 


6^^ 


21 


aT- 


lO 


worldly  and  transitoiy,  and  used  not  as  a  comparison 
with,  but  as  a  contrast  to,  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  This  is 
the  method  followed  in  Ecclesiastes  and  Lamentations, 
wliich  represent  the  kingdom  as  unsatisfactory  amid  all 
its  splendor,  and  as  tending  ever  to  ruin.  The  picture  is 
that  of  man,  without  God,  failing,  though  possessed  of 
every  earthly  advantage. 

Summary. — To  sum  u}»,  we  have  in  the  psalms  the  pre- 
sentation of  a  nuxn  raised  far  above  the  rank  of  hu- 
manity ;  a  Righteous  Sufferer  who  l)rings  salvation  to  the 
world;  a  Triumphant  Monarch  ruling  over  all,  wedded 
to  His  people  in  holy  love,  and  related  to  them  as  both 
I'riest  and  Kino-.  He  is  the  same  as  the  Wisdom  of 
God  in  Proverbs;  the  Redeemer  in  Job,  and  the  Founder 
of  that  Empire  which,  uidike  that  depicted  in  Ecclesias- 
tes and  Lamentations,  is  neither  unsatisfactory  nor  tran- 


Z'^  ^^^    '^  ^'^^'     ''^"^     '"'^^': 


C/  tLM_d/h 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  SONG  OF  SOLOMON. 

Tn1  rod  ad  or II  Remarks. — Tlie  Song  of  Solomon  is  verv 
attractive,  even  fiom  a  literary  point  of  view.  Its  natnr- 
alness  and  delicacy  of  portrayal  lend  to  it  a  cliarni. 
Many  judges  call  it  a  ver^^  gem  of  art.  It  has  also  all 
the  attractions  of  an  unsolved  mj-ster}-.  It  is  one  of  the 
great  puzzles  of  the  Bible.  Everytliing  alxnit  it  has 
been  disputed. 

Disputed  Questions  Concerning  the  Son//. — (1)  As  to  its 
unity :  Isita  number  of  independent  sonnets,  by  one  autiior, 
on  one  theme  ?  Or  is  it  a  mere  congeries  of  different  songs  ? 
(2)  As  to  the  kind  of  poetry :  Epithalamiun,  Epic,  Bu- 
colic, or  Dramatic?  If  a  drama,  is  it  divisible  into  acts 
and  scenes,  or  is  it  a  partial  drama?  (3)  As  to  its 
author:  Is  it  by  one  or  many?  (^nnposed  iii  the  same 
or  different  ages?  Is  Solomon  the  author,  or  is  he  ex- 
cluded l:)y  the  contents?  (4)  As  to  its  contents :  Is  it 
the  loving  language  of  Solomon  to  his  bride?  Is  the 
bride  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh ;  or  some  rustic  beauty? 
Or  is  the  lover  another  from  whom  Solomon  steals  the 
object  of  his  love  ?  Are  the  persons  speaking  few  or 
many  ?  (5)  As  to  its  interpretation  :  Is  it  to  be  literal  ? 
Is  the  book  irreligious,  and  thus  unworthy  of  the  canon  ? 
Is  it  prophetic  ? 

In  studying  this  book,  the  first  impiiry  is  naturally  as 
to  its  enituvird  form:  What  is  its  most  literal  and  obvious 
sense  ?    Afterwards  we  in(|uire  as  to  its  internal  cluu-acter. 


a.^i^  i4^  -  "^  ^^ """^ 


dUtM . ^'h^'.p^  ^^ 


•i.  I.  ■>•■.' 


,     l.S^-   %^J>.   ■A.^ 


1.  The  unity  of  the  song. 
There  are  ditfereiit  theories  as  to  the  external  unity  or 
outward  form  of  the  sonu'.  Prineii»al  among  these  are, 
(I.)  the  Ei»ithahimiinn  view  (Bossuet);  (II.)  the  IdyUic 
Theory  (Herder);  (III.)  the  Fragmentary  Hypothesis 
(Magnus  of  Breshiu.)  There  are  also  ditt'erent  views  as 
to  its  internal  unity.  These  are,  (I.)  the  Dranuitie  Hy- 
pothesis (Ewald) ;  (11.)  the  Allegorical  Ilhiiothesis;  and 
(III.)  the  Typical  View,  (Zockler,  Green.) 

I.  The  EpithaJdin/nnn  Vieir. — This  is  the  ojdnion  of  I)os- 
suet  (d  .  1704.)  It  was  at  lirst  well  receive(h  He 
thought  it  an  Epithalamium  written  in  honor  of  Solo- 
mon's wedding  with  Pharoah's  daughter,  and  composed 
in  seven  parts  to  correspond  to  the  seven  days  of  his  wed- 
ding feast  (C^'.  Gen.  -29:  27;  Judgesl4:  12.)  The/>roo/x  for 
his  view  are  : 

1.  The  personages  suggest  a  wedding,  (a.)  Solomon 
and  his  hride  are  the  chief  speakers,  (b.)  Female  com- 
panions of  the  hride  are  introduced.  {LJ.  Ps.  45:  14; 
Mt.  45 :  1.)  (c.)  There  are  male  companions  of  the 
o-room  who  say  nothing.  (C^ant.  5:1;  8:  18;  fludges 
14 :  11  ;  Mt.  o':  15.) 

2.  A  second  argument  is  that  there  are  certain  expres- 
sions in  the  Song  which  imply  a  change  of  day  and  night. 
The  ])ride  is  supposed  to  have  l)een  brought  to  her  husliand 
the  evening  of  the  tirst  day.  The  groom  goes  out  as  a 
shepherd  at  dawn  to  his  work.  As  he  de])arts  he  leaves 
the  bride  sleeping,  and  directs  the  attendants  not  to  wake 
her.  So  every  day  he  goes  out  at  dawn ;  and  the  verses 
expressing  his  charge  to  the  attendants  are  supposed  each 
to  mark  the  beginning  of  a  new  day.  (These  are  C^ant. 
2  :  7,  3  :  5;  8  :  4.)  So  also  the  expression  ''  Who  is  she  ?" 
(6 :  10)  marks  the  beginning  of  a  day,  and  the  greetings 
of  her  friends  to  the  l)ride  when  she  tirst  appears.  Men- 
tion is  twice  made  of  the  nigld  (8  :  1 ;  5:2);  and  twice  of 
the  bride  in  the  husband's  arms  (2:6;  8:8.) 

The  different  days  are  su})posed  to  be  :  First  day,  Chap- 


24 


1 2  :  6  ;  .^ecoixl  day,  2  :  7 2  :  1 7  ;   /////>/  day,  8  :  1 

f) :   1 ;   /o^oVA  day,  A  :  2 6  :   \) ;  //'/'/A   day,  6  :   10 7  : 

11  ;  sixth  day,  7  :  12 8  :  8  ;  sere  id  I,  day,  8  :  4 8  :  14. 

Objections  to  BossncfsVicir. — Hut  there  are  ()l)jecti()ns  to 
this  view.  These  are,  (1)  It  is  opjiosed  to  Oriental  ideas 
and  nsao;es.  True,  niusie  and  song'  accompanied  mar- 
riage feasts,  hut  the  hride  was  always  veiled  and  silent. 

(2)  Another  ohjection  is  that  recurring  formulas  do  not 
in  themselves  indicate  the  morn  of  a  fresji  day.  The 
utmost  that  can  he  claimed  is  their  consistency  with  a 
succession  of  days,  which  must  he  otherwise  proved. 
They  simply  mark  the  close  and  heginning  of  new  scenes. 

(3)  One  at  least  of  Bossuet's  divisions  is  not  justified  l)y 
the  form.  The  eleventh  and  twelffh  verses  of  the  seventh 
chapter  are  in  one  connected  speech  of  tlie  Inide,  and  do 
not  justify  a  separation.  (4)  The  character  of  the  Song 
viewed  as  a  wliole  does  not  suggest  a  succession  of  the 
days.  It  is  nonsense  to  speak  of  the  hridegroom  going 
out  to  work  every  day.  Besides,  the  parties  are  repre- 
sented as  meeting  and  speaking  in  the  open  air,  and  not 
at  a  hanquet. 

II.  The  Idi/Uic  Theory. — The  originator  of  this  theory 
was  Herder  (1778),  and  the  way  for  it  was  prepared  hy 
the  hreaking  of  the  Song  into  divisions  according  to  Bos- 
suet's  view  a])ove  descrihed.  Herder  considers  the  l)Ook 
to  he  "  Solomon's  songs  of  love."  It  ranks  ahove  all 
other  idyls.  It  consists  of  a  nund)er  of  independent 
pieces,  with  love  as  their  common  theme.  There  are  six- 
teen of  these  sonnets,  portraying  different  })eople  and  dif- 
ferent scenes ;  and  they  are  as  unconnected  as  the  separate 
Ecologues  of  Virgil.  We  are  told  (1  Ki.  4:  32),  that 
Solomon's  songs  were  one  thousand  and  five ;  and  of  these 
he  supposes  we  have  a  few  in  the  Song,     <^^t.^*•■'   *•'/  "^ ''^■'^■''^■'^^ 

But  Herder  does  not  regard  these  sixteen  sonnets  as 
entirely  disconnected.  They  are  united  (1)  in  autJiorsliip, 
all  heing  hy  Solomon;  and  (2)  the  collector  of  these  son- 
nets has  given  to  the  whole  a  unity  hy  his  skillful  ^^•ay  of 


■tt/V^— 


sL. 


¥^-^LiU^ 


44^  t 


2jJuJa 


nJ^ 


•-u^16<x^ 


25 


putting  them  together.  They  are  so  arranged  as  to 
exhibit  six  successive  scenes  and  an  appendix,  in  which  k)ve 
is  traced  through  stages  of  grovrth  from  its  begin ning  to 
ripened  fruits.  In  l)rief,  this  Idyllic  theory  is  that  the 
Song  consists  of  a  number  of  distinct  jiieces  by  one 
author,  so  united  l)y  the  collector  as  to  treat  of  one  suc- 
cessive theme.  The  theory  was  at  one  time  widely 
adopted. 

Good's  Modification  of  the  Id//Uic  Theory. — Good  inti'o- 
duced  this  theory  into  England  in  1803.  He  holds  essen- 
tially the  same  Idyllic  theory ;  but  unlike  Herder  he 
insists  that  the  sonnets  concern  the  same  characters 
throughout.  One  bride  and  one  bridegroom  tliroughout. 
He  thinks  that  the  bride  was  not  Pharoah's  daughter,  and 
that  the  marriage  was  one  of  state  policy.  Good  ditfers 
from  Herder  also  in  tliinking  that  there  are  twelve  sonnets 
instead  of  sixteen. 

Good  thinks  that  he  discovers  in  the  Song  several  re- 
condite facts  concerning  the  bride:  2:  1,  proves  that 
Sharon  was  her  l)irth-place ;  7:  1,  that  she  is  of  noble 
rank;  8  :  11-12,  that  she  had  a  noble  marriage  portion  at 
Baal-hamon ;  3:4,  that  her  father  was  probably  dead ; 
8 :  5,  that  her  mother  l)etr()tlu'd  her ;  1  :  (J,  that  her 
mother  was  twice  married  ;  8  :  1,  that  she  had  a  brother ; 
8:8,  that  she  had  a  sister. 

Prof.  Xoyes,  of  Cambridge,  thinks  that  there  are  twelve 
sonnets,  although  he  agrees  with  Herder  as  to  there  being 
difterent  parties  involved.  This  Idyllic  theory  is  held  l)y 
different  classes  of  scholars  ;  some  thinking  it  a  mere 
amatory  poem,  others,  an  allegory. 

III.  The  Fragmentarj/  TTi/pothesis. — Magnus  of  Breslau 
(1842)  best  represents  this  school.  The  hypothesis  is  that 
the  Song  is  the  work  of  different  writers  in  diiferent 
ages.  According  to  Magnus  there  are  fourteen  complete 
sonnets,  and  eight  fragments.  These  eiglit  fragments, 
however,  togetlier  make  three  complete  sonnets.  Then 
there  is  one  fragment  (2  :  15),  which  he  cannot  account 


26 


for.  Then  there  are  tiro  .suppleiueiits  to  two  of  these 
^sollllets,  hy  hiter  aiitliors.  Counting  these  he  linds  that 
there  are  twenty  different  })ieees  of  coniposidon.  [14  + 
3-l-l-f  2=20.]  Of  these,  eight  are  written  about  fifty 
years  after  Soh)inon,  six  in  tlie  age  of  Jeremiah,  four  in 
the  age  of  Ezekiel, — two  he  does  not  account  for.  His 
conclusions  are  so  al)sur(l  as  to  need  no  refutation. 

2.  Arguments  for  the  Unity  of  the  Book. — These 
are  as  folh)ws : 

1.  The  Title. — The  correct  reading  is  The  Soiu/ of  So)u/s, 
inJdch  is  Solomon's;  not  are  Solomon\s.  Tlie  genitive 
.songs  is  not,  as  Kiinchi  thought,  the  partitive  genitive, 
})ut  the  Hebrew^  superlative — like  Lord  of  lords.  The 
expression  is  equivalent  to  "  most  excellent  of  Solomon's 
songs."  The  oj)ponents  of  this  view  try  to  avoid  the 
argument  from  the  title  in  two  ways :  (1)  By  a  forced 
construction,  as  though  the  title  meant  a  song  composed,  of 
songs  ;  or  by  giving  a  distinct  meaning  to  the  first  noun, 
from  Chaldee  and  Arabic  analogies,  so  as  to  nuike  it  read 
a  chain  or  series  of  songs.  But  this  oi»poses  Hebrew  usage. 
(2)  Bg  denging  its  genuineness,  (a)  Because  it  refers  the 
composition  to  Solomon,  which,  it  is  claimed,  is  impos- 
sible, (b)  Because  in  the  title  a'sher  is  used,  and  in  the  body 
of  the  discourse  sAe,  the  abbreviated  form  of  the  pronoun. 
But  the  title  is  prose,  andthe  book  poetry.  Hence  the  prose 
form  of  the  pronoun  appears  in  the  title.  That  there 
should  be  no  title,  or  that  the  title  should  be  changed,  is 
an  improbable  supposition.  Whoever  })ut  the  title  there 
wished  to  give  his  testimony  tliat  the  work  was  by  Solo- 
mon. If  the  title  proceeded  from  the  collectors  of  the 
canon,  they  must  have  had  good  reason  for  it. 

2.  The  Book  Itself. — The  actors  aiul  s})eakers  in  the 
Song  are  the  same  throughout.  There  is  also  a  unity  in 
the  theme.  Furtlier  arguments  from  the  book  itself  are 
as  follows  :  (1)  Repetition  of  same  vei^se  in  dift'erent  parts 
to  mark  the  beginning  and  end  of  sections^(2)  The  recur- 
rence of  similar  expressions,  such  as,  lam  sick  of  love,  Fairest 


i^tA  4^  ^'^  "-^  w^--^ 


Xu  it^rvu^  nic^^    J4M^r(^   iLn^L^JZ,^ 


A 


nrUAX^/L^  (uU^L    ud 


hvUc,. 


K 


l/r-fi^A   Uy^A>kA\AUvJ  -O^-AAA^rvLA   iAu^  /Vv^i 


VYCC<^ 


27 

among  iromcn,  or  Terrible  as  an  army  irith  banners.  (3) 
The  dirfion  is  peculiar,  l)eing  unlike  that  of  any  otlier  (). 
T.  book.  The  abbreviated  relative  {she),  only  occasion- 
ally occurrins:  in  other  books,  occurs  uniformly  here. 
Opher  occurs  only  in  this  book;  but  here  live  times. 
(4)  A  sinularity  of  lonp^  passages.  There  are  several 
passages  of  length  which  are  closely  related, — as,  e.  g,, 
two  in  Chaps.  4  and  6.  (5)  Figures  derived  from,  nature 
and  natural  scenery  are  often  repeated.  Lebanon  is  used  five 
times,  apple  four  times,  ynyrtle  seven  times.  In  tact  the 
range  and  classes  of  objects  referred  to,  as  well  as  the 
repetition  of  the  names  of  those  objects,  alike  forbid  our 
conceiving  of  the  different  parts  of  the  book  as  being  com- 
l)osed  by  different  authors.  An  argument  from  style  is 
easier  felt  than  stated.  It  is  like  detecting  the  chirog- 
phy  of  a  friend.     Here  the  same  hand  appears  throughout. 

3.       INTERNAL    UNITY    OF    THE    SONG    OF    SOLOMON. 

I.  The  Dramrttir  Hypothesis. — We  have  already  discussed 
the  attempts  to  find  the  external  unity  of  the  Song: 
uiany  attemi)ts  have  also  been  made  to  find  its  internal 
unity.  The  first  of  these  resulted  in  the  Dramatic  hy- 
pothesis, ably  defended  by  Ewald  (1825-1867.)  He  was 
not,  however,  the  originator  of  the  theory.  He  holds  that 
the  Song  was  not  intended  for  the  stage^  but  that  it  has 
all  the  essentials  of  a  dramatic  composition  and  possesses 
acts  and  scenes.  The  story  is  not  narrated,  but  jtrogres- 
sively  unfolded.  The  theme  is  not  love  in  general  :  but 
the  charming  delineations  of  love  are  suljordinated  to  a 
high  ethical  or  moral  aim. 

According  to  this  hypothesis  the  theme  is  the  ])raise  of    ^i     L^^^Ja^ 
innocence  resisting  all  enticements.     A  Shulamite,  brought   ^^vS^^£!^l^^ 
up  at  Engedi,  is  the  subject.     As  this  woman  is  walking    ^^  ^-Lw^  >uJL 
with  her  lover  she  is  surrounded  with  chariots  of  a  royal     -i^^ 
party.     The  king  takes  her  to  his  palace,  flatters  her,  and     ' 
seeks  to  turn  her  aside  from  virtue.     But  her  virtue  stands 


/  d. 


'Uj. 


28 


impregnable;  and  at  last  she  triuirqdis  over  all  his  arts. 
Failing  in  his  attempt  the  king  Unally  sends  her  to  her 
hnnd)le  home. 

Delitzseh  modilies  this  view  by  rejeeting  the  idea  of  tlie 
young  shepherd  lover — though  he  retains  the  plot — and 
in  thinking  that  the  Shulamite,  tired  of  the  splendors  of 
the  eourt,  tries  to  induce  King  Solomon  to  go  to  the 
country,  and  lead  with  her  a  simple,  unassuming  life. 
Zoekler  thinks  that  the  aim  of  the  Song  is  to  exhibit  an 
attempt  of  the  Shulamite  to  win  Solomon  o\'er  to  mono- 
gamy. 

Argantciits  for  EirahTs  Dramaik-  Hypothesis. — There  are 
several  things  which  may  be  said  in  favor  of  it.  (1)  In- 
genaity  is  shown  in  l)ringing  everything  in  the  Song  into 
harmony  with  the  hypothesis.  Thus  skill  is  shown  in 
producing  a  captivating  story  and  exciting  play.  (2)'  It 
vindicates  the  unify  of  the  Song.  It  shows  that  there  is 
progress  from  beginning  to  end.  The  fragmentary  parts 
especially  are  all  nicely  woven  together.  (3)  It  possesses 
historic  jjrobabiUty .  Solomon  did  multiply  his  wives  ;  and 
it  is  quite  supposable  that  he  might  have  l)een  attracted 
by  one  who  was  merely  betrothed  to  another.  (4)  Tlie 
Song  thus  interpreted  lias  a  practical  moral  use, — to  com- 
mend virtue.  A  maiden,  cleaving  to  a  lowly  shepherd,  is 
not  allured  by  the  l)landishments  of  a  king.  Thus  there 
is  also  a  spiritual  use,  in  proving  that  the  seductions  of 
Satan  cannot  move  him  who  is  enamored  of  the  True 
Shepherd. 

Objections  to  It. — (1)  Its  norelty.  It  gives  a  meaning 
which  none  of  its  readers  have  ever  seen  in  it  until 
modern  times.  An  hypothesis  in  contradiction  to  all  an- 
tiquity should  prove  itself.  That  this  is  contrary  to  the 
view  of  anticpiity  is  proved  by  the  title — "  which  is  Solo- 
mon's." Ewald  himself  admits  that  the  LarnedJi  indicates 
an  author.  Xow  it  is  inconceivable  tliat  Solomon  should 
represent  hiinself  as  attacking  female  purity,  and  espe- 
ciallv  as  failing;  in  that  attack.     And  whetlier  the  state- 


uw^  ZT  ,  C'^T<-.4/^4'W</f^     ' 


29 


meiit  ill  the  title  is  true  or  not,  it  represents  the  view  of 
its  author,  that  Soloiiion  wrote  the  Song.  Hence  who- 
ever wrote  the  title  believed  that  the  Song  could  not  repre- 
sent the  king  in  so  unfavorable  a  light.  Besides,  the  recep- 
tion of  the  book  into  the  canon  implies  an  understanding 
of  it  by  those  who  arranged  the  canon  diifering  from  this. 
Ewald  claims  that  it  was  written  in  the  revolted  kingdom, 
and  breathes  hostility  to  Judah  and  Solomon.  But  there 
is  no  hint  of  this  inter|)retation  by  any  ancient  writer. 
Jaeobi  iirst  broached  it  in  1751.  The  view  requires  us  to 
suppose  that  the  true  sense  was  very  early  lost. 

(2)  A  second  objection  is  that  the  whole  liy})othesis 
rests  on  a  very  slender  basis.  It  rests  on  a  peculiar  inter- 
pretation of  a  single  verse,  (6  :  12),  or  ecer  I  icas  aware, 
rivj  soul  made  me  like  the  chariots  of  Amminadib  ;  which  is 
translated  by  Ewald,  "  Or  ever  I  was  aware  my  desire 
brought  me  to  the  chariots  of  my  noble  people."  But 
even  if  this  translation  is  permissible  (which  is  doubtful), 
it  is  unnecessary  to  believe  that  the  subject  of  the  sen- 
tence was  carried  off  in  those  chariots. 

(3)  The  hypothesis  recpiires  many  gratuitous  assump- 
tions and  forced  interpretations.  Its  advocates  take  ach-an- 
tage  of  the  highly  figurative  language  of  the  Song ;  and 
they  resort  to  arbitrary  divisions  into  parts.  They  fail  to 
see  that  no  distinction  appears  between  the  language  of 
Solomon  and  that  of  the  Shepherd.  Both  use  the  same 
terms  (e.  g.,  Dore,  ande filed,  fair,  etc.),  and  are  therefore 
the  same  person.  That  there  are  not  two  distinct  lovers 
appears  further  from  the  fact  (a)  that  the  Shulamite 
always  responds  in  loving  terms  to  both,  as  though  they 
were  identical ;  and  (b)  that  the  supposed  two  lovers 
never  appear  in  the  same  scene. 

(4)  The  hypothesis  has  not  satisfied  subsequent  interpre- 
ters. Ewald's  own  friends  refuse  to  adopt  it.  Thus  it 
falls  to  the  ground. 

II.  The  Allegorical  Hypothesis. — Its  advocates  believe 
that  the  spiritual  element  in  the  Song  alone  gives  it  unity. 
Thev  hold  that  the  aim  of  the  Song  is  to  set  forth  an  en- 


30 


tirely  different  suhjeet   than   carnal   love.     They  helieve 
that  any  literal  method  of  interpretation  is  irnpossil)le. 

Proof  of  this  :  (1)  The  king  is  now  a  wealthy  nohle- 
man,  now  a  poor  shepherd  (8:  12;  1:  f)) ;  the  bride  is 
now  a  })rinee's  danghter,  now  the  keeper  of  a  vinevard 
(7:1;  1  :  S).  These  are  inconsistencies  unless  the  !Song 
is  allegorical.  (2)  The  literal  sense  burdens  it  with  inde- 
corous incongruities,  as  when  the  bride  is  twice  repre- 
sented as  rising  from  her  couch  in  the  night,  and  going- 
through  the  streets  in  search  of  her  beloved  (  Vid.  3  :  2-4.) 
(3)  Many  parts  indicate  that  the  bride  is  not  an  individual 
person,  and  is  not  to  be  so  understood.  The  same  thing 
is  shown  by  the  use  of  similes  which  are  inappropriate  to 
set  forth  the  charms  of  a  beautiful  wcunan.  For  ex- 
ample :  Slie  is  compared  to  an  army  witli  l)anners  (6  : 
4);  and  to  a  com})any  of  horses  in  Pharoah's  chariots 
(1 :  9.)  Xow  all  this  cannot  apply  to  an  individual,  but 
can  apply  to  a  community. 

General  Considerations  Which  Favor   This  Hypothesis.-^^ 
There  are  certain  purely  fanciful   allegorical  interpreta- 
tions, which  we  reject.     But,  for  the  following  reasons, 
we  believe  that  the  lore  of  Christ  to  His  peoj^le  is  meant  to 
be  established  : 

1.  The  position  of  the  book  in  the  ().  T.  canon.  If  it 
had  been  literally  interpreted  by  those  who  admitted  it,  it 
would  not  have  been  allowed  into  the  canon,  since  they 
admitted  there  only  that  which  has  a  spiritual  use. 

2.  Its  title — Song  of  Songs — can  l)e  justitied  only  by  its 
applying  to  a  great  theme.  According  to  the  literal  inter- 
pretation the  Song  is  too  unimportant  to  be  thus  denomi- 
nated. 

3.  The  figure  of  a  marriage  is  frequently  used  in  the 
Bible  to  show  the  relation  of  Christ  to  Ilis  people.  Ex- 
amples may  be  given :"  God  speaks  of  Himself  as  a 
"  Jealous  God,"  (Ex.  20  :  5.)  Isaiah  asks  Israel,  "  Where 
is  the  bill  of  your  mother's  divorcement?"'  (Is.  50:  1.) 
The  sentence,  "  The  beloved  of  the  Lord  shall  dwell  in 
safety,"  occurs.     (Deut.  33  :   12.)     Idolatry  is  s|)oken  ot 


ui 


i^-^U^  ^A--  /c^^T^v  a^  f 


T^rOeA^iivCL  ijul/Z^^^'^^' 


^r-  '^^  "HI'S  ^ 


31 

as  a  "  Whoring-  after  strange  gods,"  (Ex.  34:  15;  Deut. 
^AiS"^  31  :  le^^Ezek.  6  :  9.)  Also,  "  Thy  Maker  is  thy  Husband, 
~tFre~f::6rd  is  His  name,"  (Is.  54 :  5.)  This  argument  is 
t\yo-fold :  (a)  It  is  probable  that  this  figure  is  used  here, 
as  elsewhere,  simply  because  it  is  a  yery  common  scrip- 
tural metaphor;  and  (b)  the  more  frequent  use  of  this 
figure  in  later  times  seems  due  to  the  influence  of  this 
Song. 

4.  In  Ps.  45  the  figure  of  a  marriage  is  used,  aiul  is 
expressly  shown  to  refer  to  the  Messiah.  Marriage  there 
.signifies  loce  to  God. 

5.  Names  of  persons  in  the  Bible  are  frecpiently  sugges- 
tiye  of  a  spiritual  meaning.  So  here.  In  Ps.  72  Solo- 
mon recognizes  this  typical  use  of  names.  Some  claim 
that  the  name  SJiulamite — or  Shulamith — is  the  femiuine 
of  Solomon. 

6.  The  spiritual  sense  is  applied  to  the  figure  of  a  mar- 
riage in  the  N.  T.  Christ  explicitly  calls  Himself "  the 
bridegroom."  (Mt.  9:  15;  22:  2-14;  25:  1-13.)  The 
''Elect  lady"  is  used  l)y  John  (2  Jno.  1.)  "Marriage 
of  the  Lamb"  occurs,  (Key.  19:  7-9;  21:  9;  22:  17.) 
(Other  instances  are:  Jno.  3:  29;  Rom.  5:7;  Eph.  5: 
25-32.)  These  words  of  the  X.  T.  may  l)e  taken  as  an 
exposition  of  the  Song. 

7.  The  spiritual  inter})retation  has  always  been  the 
yiew  of  scholars.  The  Septuagint  rendering  of  4 :  8 
seems  to  put  a  spiritual  sense  into  the  words.  The 
Talmud  calls  it  the  "  holiest  book ; "  and  because  of  its 
purity  requires  the  hands  of  him  who  reads  it  to  be 
washed.  Philastrius  says,  "  It  is  heresy  to  consider  the 
book  other  than  spiritual."  The  Fathers  also  generally 
thought  the  same;  e.  g.,  Jerome,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Am- 
brose and  Augustine.  Pabbi  Tbn  Ezra,  a  celebrated  scholar 
of  the  middle  ages,  exclaims,  "  Far  be  it  from  the  Song 

to  treat  of  carnal  pleasure;  nor  is  there  indeed  any  con-  ./ ,  ^^-v- 

troversy  aljout  this."  ^^^^^JfU^  aJUL4'^.'^'''L^u^  7-^  / 

— —     The  Fault  of  the  Allegorical  Hypothesis. — So  far,  then,  0  ** 

the  Allegorical  Hypothesis  is  justified.     Modern  ration- 
alism,  holding   to   the   literal    interpretation,   of   course 


32 


()jil)()sc's  it.  Ill  modern  tiiiios  (Jrotiu.s  is  the  exjioiK'iit  of 
tliis  opposition.  Bnt  thv  f((Hlf  of  (lie  Allegorical  Hypothesis 
is  that  it  fails  to  properhj  explain  and  adcquate.b/  adjad 
the  literal  and  spiritiad  elements  in  the  Song.  ITenee  we  sub- 
stitute in  plaee  of  it  the  Typical  Method,  for.whicli  Zoek- 
ler  contends,    r"  ■^-^<-''vv   ?  *-<-<  ^  H'i,  -"  '  •       ■  '*  '    f  ^^  <■.  i   > 

III.  The  Typical  Method. — [An  exliaustive  exposition  of 
the  Typical  method  of  interjiretation  of  this  liook  is 
given  by  Dr.  Green  in  his  transhition  of  Lange's  Com- 
mentary on  the  ISong  ot  Sok)mon.  (Lange  on  Sonq  of 
Solomon,  Scribner  &  Co.,  1870,  pp.  19-25.)  The  brief  ab- 
stract which  we  append  is  intended  to  exhibit  merely  an 
outline  of  that  note. — Eds.] 

We  adopt  this  method,  for  the  following  reasons :  ([.) 
There  are  objections  to  the  Allegorical  uddch  do  not  apply  to  the 
Typical  method:  (1)  It  neglects  and  unduly  depreciates 
the  literal  sense.  (2)  It  inverts  the  true  relation  l)etween 
the  outward  form  and  the  spiritual  sul)stance  in  this  Song. 
The  outward  form  is  primary,  instead  of  the  reverse.  (8) 
The  Allegorical  method  violates  the  analogy  of  O.  T.  in- 
struction, and  tends  to  fanciful,  tar-fetched  explanations 
of  types.  (4)  It  disregards  the  needs  of  the  people  of 
God  under  the  O.  T.  dispensation.  We  assume  that  Can- 
ticles, like  otlier  books  of  Scripture,  had  its  special  adap- 
tation to  the  wants  of  those  for  whom  it  was  immediately 
prepared.  (5)  It  cannot  achieve  a  satisfactory  interpreta- 
tion of  the  book.  It  allows  anything,  either  of  ideas  or 
doctrine,  to  be  made  out  of  it. 

(II.)  The  Typical  is  the  true  method.  According  to  this 
the  primary  subject  of  the  Song,  and  that  which  is  de- 
noted by  its  language  in  its  literal  acceptation,  is  the  loving 
intercourse  of  King  Solomon  and  his  bride.  But  his  in- 
dividual and  earthly  relatioNS  become  the  mirror  of  the 
spiritual  and  the  heavenly.  In  properly  studying  the 
Song,  therefore,  the  first  step  is  the  inquiry  after  its 
literal  sense.  Here  both  Zockler  and  Delitzsch  have 
failed;  they  seek  to  find  a  regular  plot,  and  thus  have 


33 

marred  the  simplicity  of  its  structure  1)v  needless  comjili- 
cations. 

The  ethical  sense  is  Iniilt  upon  the  literal.  We  reject 
the  views  of  Delitzsch  and  Zockler  here,  wliich  make  it 
teach  a  mere  romantic  sentimentalism  on  the  one  hand, 
or  the  principle  of  monogamy  on  the  other,  as  being  un- 
reasonable, and  l)ascd  on  unfounded  assumptions;  and 
believe  that  all  that  can  in  fairness  be  made  out  of  the 
ethical  view  of  the  book  is  that  two  persons  are  here  de- 
scribed who  live  in  and  for  each  other.  Canticles  (h)esnot 
rise  to  the  inculcation  of  monogamy  ;  nevertheless,  every- 
thing about  the  l)Ook  is  pure. 

Is  anything  more  than  the  literal  and  ethical  sense  in- 
tended by  the  writer  of  this  book  ?  Zockler  thinks  not. 
We  think  it  has,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  mystical 
meaning.  Yet  it  is  a  difficult  question.  For  (1)  the  l)<)()k 
contains  no  clear  indications  of  its  higher  meaning;  (2) 
such  instances  as  Ruth,  Estlier  and  many  of  the  Proverbs 
should  make  us  cautious  in  attciiqding  to  determine  in 
advance  how  much  of  evident  religious  character  is  neces- 
sary to  entitle  a  book  to  admission  to  the  ().  T.  canon  ; 
and  (8)  the  sacred  liistorians,  in  all  ])robability,  were 
ignorant  of  the  typical  nature  of  much  that  they  have 
recorded.  Still,  we  believe  that  Soh^mon  must  have  had 
some  knowledge  of  the  syndxdical  charactei"  of  that  love 
which  he  has  here  embellished,  and  therefore  of  the 
mystical  element  in  wliat  he  here  records. 

4.       DIFFERENT    VIEM^S    AMONG    THOSE    WHO    AGREE    THAT  THE  /    . 

BOOK    HAS    A    HIGHER    SENSE    THAN    THE    LITERAL,    r^  CLULm{^,  V  U-U^  

We  have  decided  that  the  book  possesses  a  higher  sense 
than  the  literal.  Yet  there  are  wide  differences  of  opinion 
concerning  its  spiritual  sense  among  those  who  agree  to 
the  main  fact.     We  consider  some  of  these : 

Leon.  Hug  (1813). — He  sees  in  the  bride  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tril)es;  in  the  bridegroom.  King  Ilezekiah  ot 
Judah  designated  as  Solomon;  in  the  brothers  of  Shula- 
mith,  8 :  8-9,  a  party  in  the  house  of  Judah;  in  the  entire 

5 


34 


Song  a  representation  clothed  in  idvUic  form  of  the  h)no-- 
ing  felt  by  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  for  rennion 
with  Judah,  but  which  those  "  brothers  "  opposed. 

RosenmuUer  (1830.) — His  view  is  based  on  the  tigures 
of  Proverbs,  as  Wisdom  is  there  represented  as  a  lemale.//i 
The  bride,  of  the  Song  represents  Wisdom.  The  marn'of/c 
represents  the  relation  of  God  to  His  people.  Some  in 
the  ^liddle  Ages  thonght  that  the  bride  represents  the 
Virgin  Mary. 

The  Tare/urns. — They  say  that  the  Song  denotes  the  re- 
lation of  Jehovah  to  Israel,  historically  and  prophetically. 
The  words  "  Draw  me  "  refer  to  the  conung  ont  ot 
Egypt.  Blackness  is  induced  by  the  sin  of  Avorshiping 
the  golden  calf.  The  bride  is  still  comely,  because  re- 
stored from  sin  \)\  penitence.  The  kiss  refers  to  the  cove- 
nant at  Sinai.  ^  Horses  in  Pharoah's  chariots  "  refer'  to 
the  overthrow  of  Pharoah  at  the  Red  Sea.  The  last 
chapter  is  Messianic,  and  refers  to  the  resurrection. 

Weisse  (d.  1824). — A  view  similar  to  the  above. 

Moody  Stuart. — The  Song  is  an  epitome  of  Gospel 
history,  ending  with  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  He 
gives  the  following  analysis : — The  Song  opens  with  a 
longing  for  the  advent.  Then  (1  :  9 — 7  :  2)  alludes  to  the 
birth  at  Bethlehem.  The  shepherds  and  wise  men  are 
compared  to  horses.  In  (2 :  8 — 2  :  15)  John  is  alluded  to 
as  heralding  the  coming  of  Christ.  The  bridal  chariot 
represents  the  hoi}-  human  body.  The  mother  represents 
the  Jewish  people.  The  sleeping  and  tlie  search  refer  to 
Gethsemane  and  the  bewilderment  of  the  disciples  at  the 
C^ross.  The  '' little  sister  "  refers  to  the  Gentile  Church. 
The  vinegard  let  out  to  keepers  is  an  alUision  to  the  trans- 
mission of  the  Gos]:)el  to  the  Gentiles.  The  Song  ends 
with  a  cry  for  the  second  coming. 

Thrupp  (Recent  Clerggnmn  of  Church  of  Engbind.) — He 
finds  C'hrist's  advent  in  the  middle  of  the  Song  (5:  1.) 
What  precedes  refers  to  the  waiting  for,  and  anticipation 
of,  Christ's  coming;  what  follows  alludes  to  times  subse- 
quent to  the  ascension. 


fJU^  2/U-V   t-Uv A^'*^^^^^ 


-co 


U/TV^^JU^    . 


icu' 


35 


Herif/sfei/berf/  (Berlm ,  1853.) — He  finds  the  advent  alluded 
to  in  the  middle  of  the  book.  The  bride  is  the  Jewisli 
Church,  and  the  Song-  is  a  poetic  picture  of  Jewish  his- 
toiy.  DaiKihirrs  of  Jerusalem  refers  to  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. The  rtiijhthi  search  refers  not  to  the  withdrawal  of 
Christ's  bodily  presence,  but  the  witlidrawal  of  His  favor 
and  love  from  the  Jews  since  they  rejected  Ilini.  '•'•He 
puts  His  hand  in  the  door  "  refers  to  Christ's  manifesting 
His  power  by  the  Church.  Israel  rises  to  open  the  door, 
but  too  late.  The  u-atrhmen  refer  to  the  judgments  on 
the  Jews. 

H.  A.^Hahn  {Brest.  1852.) — He  explains  the  Song  of 
Solomon  as  setting  forth  under  a  dramatic  dress,  and  in 
the  course  of  six  acts,  the  fundamental  tliought  that  "  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  is  called  to  finally  vancpiish  heathen- 
dom with  tlie  weapons  of  righteousness  and  love,  and  to 
conduct  it  back  again  to  the  peaceful  rest  of  a  loving 
communion  with  Cod."  According  to  this,  therefore, 
Shulamith  is  a  representative  of  heathendom,  and  particu- 
larly of  Japhetic  heathendom;  and  her  younger  sister, 
8 :  9  ff.)  corresponds  to  Ilamitic  heathendom,  which  is  at 
last  also  to  be  converted  too. 

Furtlter  Vieu-s. — Some  lind  prophetic  instead  of  spiritual 
features  in  it.  Others  abandon  the  attempt  to  lind  in  it 
the  history  of  the  Church  of  God,  and  seek  rather  to 
lind  in  it  phases  of  experience  of  believers  in  their 
Cliristian  lives. 

Ixernarks  on  the  Abore  :  The  True  View. — The  fault  with 
all  the  above  is  that  the}'  are  too  speciiic  and  exclusive.  The 
true  mode  is  to  take  the  relations  of  eartldy  love  and 
make  them  the  synd)ol  of  heavenly  love  in  all  its  aspects. 
We  remark  :  (1)  The  bride,  in  the  spiritual  sense,  repre- 
sents the  body  of  C^hristian  believers  in  the  aggregate, 
and  not  individuals.  In  Scripture  the  bride  of  Christ  is 
nowhere  applied  to  individuals.  There  is  but  one  bride. 
But  every  individual  believer  belongs  to  that  collective 
body,  viz.,  the  Church — the  bride.  The  believer  partici- 
pates in  the  nature  and  privileges  of  this  spiritual  bride. 


36 


[2)  A  further  remark  is  tliat  it  is  not  iiecessary  to  seek 
a  (listiuct  meaning  for  every  detail  of  the  storv.  Figures 
arc  necessarily  not  to  he  carried  too  far.  Tlie  great  les- 
son of  the  Song  is  the  love  of  Christ  for  His  Cliurch.  The 
former  is  denoted  hv  Sotonnm,  the  latter  hy  the  l/ridc. 
But  just  how  far  shall* we  carry  the  attempt  to  discover 
distinct  meanings  in  the  details  of  the  ISong  ?  This  is  a 
difficult  matter  to  decide.  There  is  an  indetiniteness 
liere.  But  this  very  indetiniteness  is  in  reality  a  charm 
instead  of  a  defect  in  figures — especially  allegories  and 
types.  Hence  we  make  no  assertion  as  to  how  far  here 
distinct  meanings  are  to  he  sought  in  the  details.  The 
rule  IS,  la//  ho/d  of  the  ntaiii  tyatli  which  is  sw/f/ested;  then  all 
the  details  which,  in  the  interpretation,  do  not  appear 
forced  are  to  he  accepted — all  else  is  to  he  rejected. 

5.      CONCLFDINU    REMARKS. 

Aatliorsjiip  of  the  i^u)u/. — That  it  was  written  hy  Solo- 
mon appears  (1)  from  its  title.  (2)  It  is  also  proved  hy 
internal  corroborations.  There  are  frequent  allusions  to 
David  and  Solomon.  (4 :  4 ;  3:  7;  3:  9;  8 :  11.)  A 
writer  later  than  Solomon  would  he  led  hy  I.  Kings  11 : 
3,  and  not  hy  the  facts  of  this  earlier  period,  which  are 
set  forth  in  the  hook,  (3)  Frequent  mention  of  locality 
in  all  parts  of  the  land  is  such  as  to  give  the  impression 
that  the  division  of  the  king(h)m  had  not  heen  made  at 
the  date  of  its  composition.  (4)  The  al)undance  of  _////- 
nres  from  nature  agrees  with  what  we  know  of  Solomon's 
taste,  (e.  g.,  Cedar  of  Lebanon,  /Kdm,  vi)ie//ards,  orchards, 
&c.)  Solomon  is  known  to  have  delighted  in  horses  (I. 
Ki.  10:  28.)  {Cf.  Cant.  1:  9.)  (5)  The  air  ef  prosperous 
o.handance  and  peaceful  enJo//ment  al)out  the  hook  [)oints  to 
Solomon's  reign.  (6)  We  know  that  Solomon  did  com- 
pose nuihy  songs  (I.  Ki.  4 :  32.) 

Objections  to  This  View. — (1)  The  first  objection  is 
founded  on  the  use  of  the  relatire  pronoun  {she  for  a'.vAfr.) 
It  is  not  found  in  Proverbs  nor  in  the  two  psalms  of 
Solomon,     It  is  found  in  Ecclesiastes,  althouo-h  these  oh- 


fLuiiAd  -iuwM 


37 

jec'tors  deny  that  Solomon  is  the  author  of  Ecelesiaste 
Now  this  form  is  not  of  late  date,  since  it  is  believed  to 
occur  in  (jrenesis.jj^  (2)  A  further  objection  is  based  on 
the  presence  in  the  book  of  Air/me((ii  forms.  But  the 
poetry  of  the  Bible  is  full  of  such  forms  from  the  earliest 
times.  (3)  An  objection  is  based  on  the  presence  in  the 
Itook  of  tiro  iron/s — Pardas  and  Apiryon  (Cant.  4  :  13;  3  :  J'^v^^-"^"^ 
9.)  The  former,  it  is  claimed,  is  a  Persian  word,  the 
latter  a  Greek  \\ord.  If  this  l)e  true  the  book  must 
have  ])een  composed  as  late  as  the  ^Macedonian  conquest. 
But  the  fact  asserted  concerning  these  two  particular 
words  is  uncertain,  and  philology  does  not  justity  the 
claim.  The  alleged  Persian  word  may  even  be  originally 
of  Hebrew  origin  and  tlience  appro] )riated  by  the  Per- 
sian ;  while  it  can  be  [)roved  that  the  alleged  Greek  word 
is  a  true  Hebrew  term.  (4)  Another  objection  is  that  in 
the  Song  Solomon  jiraises  himself  too  much,  and  thus 
that  the  Song  re]»resents  Solonjon  in  an  (Difarorahle  liqht. 
But  we  reply  that  the  praise  comes  not  from  his  own  l)ut 
from  tlie  lips  of  his  l)eloved ;  aiul  it  is  not  of  himself  or 
of  earthly  love  that  Solomon  is  writinii'. 


CHAPTER  III 


TROVERBS. 


General  Character  of  the  Book. — The  Book  of  Proverbs 
represents  a  general  accordanee  between  the  law  of  God 
and  life.  It  stands  in  a  most  intimate  relation  to  law, 
which  is  represented  in  the  light  of  Wisdom, 

(1.)  The  law,  as  a  guide  of  life,  is  here  shown  to  be 
[)raetically  nseful  as  well  as  good.  Self-interest  is  held 
up,  yet  not  to  the  exclusion  of  God's  law,  l)ut  showing- 
how  completely  God  has  made  our  interest  and  obedience 
coincident.  Temporal  advantages  are  not  the  main  ob- 
ject; these  attend  the  course  of  ])iety.  Yet  occasional 
passages  look  beyond  this  life — e.  g.,  12:  28;  14:  82; 
15  :  24, 

(2,)  This  blessedness  is  not  mere  external  pros})erity 
a[>art  from  the  favor  of  God;  but  only  as  a  sign  of  God's 
blessing  is  it  to  be  desired,  (18  :  16 ;  3  :  15.) 

(3,)  Xor  is  its  aim  to  inculcate  mere  external  morality, 
(4  :  23  ;  17  :  3  ;  6  :  16-19,)  External  religious  services 
jLitu^-U^^i^^re  no  substitutes  for  piety,  (15^13;  2lV27;  21:  3.) 
^^ju^^-^j^^  jptj  These  passages  free  it  from  aspersions  and  raise  it  above 
the  depreciating  estimate  of  opponents.  It  makes  fre- 
(pient  appeals  to  law  as  the  only  rule  of  safety,  (6 :  23 ; 
28  :  4,  7,  9.)  In  these  Torah  is  not  to  be  understood  as  in- 
struction, l)ut  as  divine  authoritative  hiw ;  not,  indeed, 
from  a  human  l)ut  from  a  divine  source,  (6 :  20.)  Law, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  not  limited  to  the  law  of  Moses, 
but  inchides  all  God's  law  however  communicated,  (13: 

38 


A-^C/J/T--^^ 


^.VUA^     'U^.vt^  yW&Tc^ 


39 

14  )  It  iiu'liides  revelation  made  through  the  jirophets, 
(Its.  1 :  10.)  Law  is  made  parallel  with  vision.  As  well 
priests  as  prophets  were  regarded  as  inspired.  The  law 
of  the  wise,  in  Proverbs,  ditters  from  either  of  these  ;  not, 
however,  in  inspiration  or  obligation — there  is  no  discrep- 
ancy there — but  in  the  form  of  presentation  and  in  the 
[)ortion  of  truth  exhibited. 

Proverbs  does  not  deal  with  saered  observances  or  Lev- 
itical  ordimmces ;  nor,  as  is  the  case  with  the  prophets, 
with  what  specitically  applies  to  Israel.  It  concerns  itself 
with  ordinary  imitters  and  everv-day  life.  It  refers  to 
men  as  men  in  their  daily  duties.  Hence  we  do  not  ex- 
[lect  to  tind  in  it  citations  from  the  Mosaic  law.  There 
is,  however,  a  connection  Avith  that  law,  (3  :  19.)  The 
Tree  of  Life  is  mentioned,  (3 :  18).  And  other  passages 
referring  to  other  parts  of  ihe  O.  T.     An  alhision  to  tlie  .      l  -I  h 

flood  ap})ears  in  3  :  20.     There  is  no  allusion  to  idolatry^  ov'liA*'*^^-*^       ^ 

The  Ndtiire  of  All  Prorerbs. — This  method  of  instruc-  cnf  itZU^nft^i^- 
tion  is  curi'ent  in  every  nation  on  the  globe.     The  East  is 
fanu)us  for  abundant  [U'overbs.     They  endxxly  profound 
truths  in  brief  sentences. 

TJ(eir  Oriji'ui. — (1)  They  may  l)e  wise  utterances  ot 
sages,  or  (2)  they  may  circulate  as  expressive  of  the 
general  common  sense  of  the  people.  Both  of  these  classes 
are  found  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  Many  are  by  [Solomon. 
Others  are  ado}»ted  from  current  language.  (Such  are 
27:17;  24:  13.) 

Characteristics  Peculiar  to  Sacred  Proverlj.s. — Though  re- 
lated to  those  from  profane  sources,  they  difl:er  (a),  in 
their  religious  character  and  aim.  This  sho\vs  that  they  are 
the  reflected  light  of  God's  revelation.  The  law  says,  "Obey 
and  live;" — Proverbs,  "He  that  findetli  ]\Ie  flndeth 
life.'"  (b)  These  are  inspired,  and  hence  free  from  error. 
They  were  spoken  under  special  guidance  of  the  Ploly 
iSpirit.  Proverbs  are  found  in  other  parts  of  Scripture. 
(I.  Sam.  10  :  12;  24:  13;  Luke  4 :  23-25.)  Our  Saviour 
(pu3tes  two  :  "  Physician  heal  thyself,"  "  No  prophet  is 
without  honor  save  in  his  own  country.''     Those  adopted 


40 


are  hi  pros  lie  form,  anil  of  a  single  line.  Tho.-<e  in  the 
Book  of  Proverbs  a^-e  of  poetic  structure  and  of  two 
ellipses.  The  substance  is  borrowed,  Init  I'ccast  in  }toetic 
form. 

The  Sf  met  lire  of  Prorerhs. — All  kinds  of  [)aral  lei  isms 
are  found.  We  will  follow  the  classification  of  Dc- 
litzsch  : 

The  sim[)lest  are  those  of  two  lines:  (1)  These  may 
form  a  s//no)h/moits  parallelism  in  which  the  idea  of  the 
first  is  repeated  in  the  second  in  a  different  form.  (2) 
Antithetle  parallelism.  The  thought  of  the  first  is  in  the 
second  illustrated  by  its  opposite,  or  is  in  the  fo  m  of  a 
question,  (18 :  4.)  (3)  S>/nthefie.  There  is  an  additional 
but  related  thought  in  the  second  line,  (10  :  8.)  (4)  A 
eontmuous  parallelism,  where  one  and  the  same  thought 
is  expanded,  (13  :  4.)  (5)  Pemibolie  proverb,  where  the 
thought  is  illustrated  l)y  a  comparison  of  some  familiar 
(>l)iect  by  the  use  of  the  particles  as  and  .so,  (26:  11.)  (<>) 
Eiiihlenydie  proverbs.  Xo  word  expressive  of  (compari- 
son is  used;  but  the  conjunction  (Utd  is  employed,  (25  : 
25.)  Sometimes  they  are  without  a  conjunction,  (11  :  22.) 
These  are  all  the  varieties  that  proverbs  of  two  clauses 
assume.  By  extension  they  may  be  enlarged  to  three 
and  even  eight  lines. 

Canonical  Authorift/. — Several  quotations  occur  in  the 
N.  T.  Among  others,  Prov.  3:  11-15  is  quoted  in  Heb. 
12  :  5-7  ;  29  :  23  in  Jauies  4  :  6  and  I.  Peter  5:5;  10  :  12 
in  I.  Peter  4:  8;  11  :  31  in  I.  Peter  4:  18;  24:  12  in 
Pom.  2:6;  26:  12  in  II.  Peter  2 :  22 ;  25:  6-7  in  Luke 
14:  8-10.  The  Hebrew  name  is  3Iishle>/,  the  root  of 
which  is  Uj  eompare.^  Called  by  the  Greek  fathers 
Paroimia.  "^  /  _    -r 

Questions  of  Form. — The  book  consists  of  three  main 
divisions,  wnth  a  brief  appendix.  (I.)  Chapters  1-9,  Book 
of  Wisdom.  (II.)  Compters  10-24,  headed  "  Proverbs  of 
Solomon,"  (including  two  appendices.)  (HI.)  The  third 
division  consists  of  chapters  25-29.  These  are  headed, 
"  These  are  also  Proverbs  of  Solomon ''     To  these  divi- 


■vw^ -^-^-    \ 


f 


Cr    (^^    ^ 


l^cLc^:^^'     CocnJW-^ 


2^     .    -L^.^^y\^-Jr  ^iy-'     (^     ^ 


^J^jjL^  aJL6  ^.JJu^'^i-  ^Si../^^ 


^  t^  ^u..::^  ^<«**-^  <^^-tvii^<  ^^ 


1 


41 


sions  are  appended  one  chapter  lieaded  "  The  wordy  of 
Agur,"'  and  another  headed  "  The  Proverbs  of  King 
Lenuiel."     This  hist  contains  an  acrostic. 

(I.)  The  opening  verses  of  the  lirst  division  (1-9)  are  a 
general  introduction.  The  purpose  is  to  teach  men  to 
know  wisdom.  The  rest  of  the  section  is  one  discourse 
occupied  with  a  commendation  of  wisdom  and  counsels 
of  parent  to  child,  or  of  a  teacher  to  his  pupil.  There  is 
avi  intimation  of  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Trinity, — hxios — the 
word  of  God — the  wisdom  of  God.  This  wisdom  is  there- 
fore a  person — Christ 

(II.)  The  second  division  (chapters  10-24),  is  of  Prov- 
erbs, properly  so-called.  .  Wisdom  is  here  exhibited  in 
its  variety  and  applicability  to  the  details  of  life.  It  con- 
sists of  brief  utterances  or  disconnected  words  in  juxta- 
position. In  chapter  15  the  word  io/v/runs  through  one 
passage.  In  the  majority  of  cases  there  is  no  reason  for 
the  arrangement.  A  subdivision  or  appendix  is  indi- 
cated in  22:  17.  Another  title  appears  in  24  :  28 — "These 
also  to  the  wise."  This  probably-  denotes  authorship. 
There  are  ditferent  interpretations  :  (1)  "  These  hi/  the 
wise,"  i.  e.,  not  originally  by  Solomon,  but  adopted  by 
him.  (2)  Some  say  designed /or  the  wise  :  fools  may  re- 
ject them.  The  first  view  is  the  best.  In  the  main  part 
of  the  second  section,  (10:  1 — 22:  16),  the  sentences  have 
two  clauses,  and  are  mosth*  antithetical.  They  are 
usually  of  seven  words,  sometimes  six  or  eight,  rarely 
more.  Four  words  are  in  the  first  clause,  three  in  the 
second.  The  words  "  in}/  son  "  occur  only  once,  (19  : 
27.)  In  chapters  22 :  28 — 24,  though  still  resembling  the 
preceding  in  general  contents,  the  proverbs  are  pro- 
longed, extending  through  two  or  even  three  verses,  and 
in  one  instance  through  seven.  '•'■My  son"  occurs  fre- 
quently. The  first  twenty-four  chapters  would  seem  to 
contain  all  the  proverbs  which  Solomon  himself  wrote  in 
this  form. 

(III.)  The  third  division  contains  "The  Proverbs 
which  the   men   of   TIezekiah,    King  of   Judah,  copied 


,i^cL^ 


42 

out,"  From  what  tlioy  wore  copied  we  liave  no  means 
of  ascertaining,  nor  Ity  wlidm ;  }>robal)ly  In'  persons 
fitted  by  talents  or  ins[)iration.  These  proverbs  follow 
each  other  without  any  order  or  classification.  The 
Av o rd  "/oo/ ''  occurs  in  ten  successive  verses;  '■'■  sloth faV 
in  four.  In  this  division  the  proverl)S  consist  of  seven 
or  eight  words.  C'haj»ters  Ib-ll  contain  fre((uent  com- 
parisons. Chapter  29  is  chiefly  antithetical.  The  title 
in  chapter  25  reads  as  though  "  also  ''  (pialifies  all  th.<t 
follows,  and  hence  implies  that  all  the  proverbs  were 
copied  by  the  "men  of  Ilezekiah."  It  is  claimed  that 
the  men  of  Hezekiah  copied  the  entire  book.  The  Tal- 
mud says  that  Hezekiah  and  kis  company  wrote  Isaiah 
and  Proverbs,  but  this  simply  means  that  they  copied 
them  into  the  canon.  The  truth  is,  the  book  was  com- 
pleted by  the  men  of  Ilezekiah. 

Different  Views. — (1)  Furst :  The  men  of  Ilezekiah  con- 
stituted a  permanent  body.  Solomon  was  distinguished 
as  an  author  of  proverbs,  and  many  wrote  proverbs  and 
gave  them  his  name.  This  is  a  collection  of  these.  But 
in  reply,  we  claim  that  the  natural  meaning  is  that  the 
men  of  Hezekiah  collected  these  from  among  Solomon's. 

(2.)  Hitzig :  He  assumes  that  there  were  four  collec- 
tions, and  that  the  present  order  is  chronological,  (a), 
1--9;  (b),  10:  1—24:  22;  (c),  24:  23-34;  (d),  25-29. 

(3.)  Ewald  assumes  the  following  origin,  which  he  de- 
duces from  the  structure  of  the  Proverbs  themselves: 
He  claims  that  the  first  collection  was  made  by  some  un- 
known person  two  centuries  after  Solomon.  Chapters 
1 — 20  :  16  may  be  by  Solomon  and  some  others.  In  Heze- 
kiah's  reign  the  second  collection  was  made,  but  not  i.^'-'i-i^ 
united  with  the  first.  It  is,  at  most,  a  little  older  tliaii 
Hezekiah's  reign.  In  the  early  part  of  the  following 
century  the  first  division  was  prefixed  as  a  preface.     An-  [ 

other  section  beginning  with  22 :  16  was  prefixed  to  the  ' 
second  collection  and  the  whole  appended  to  the  first. 
These  last  two  additions  contain  nothing  from  Solomon. 
The  finishing  touches  were  made  and  the  present  form 


H^'  .O^  v^-^  -^H  fT^Z^T/^  ^^^ 


43 


attained  four  centuries  after  Solomon's  deatli,  1)}'  tlie  ad- 
dition of  clia[»ters  30,  31. 

The  aro-unient  of  Ewald  is  based  on  his  theory  of  the 
pr(jgTess  of  proverbial  poetry  among  the  Hebrews.  The 
oldest  are  the  shortest.  Then  come  the  contrasted.  The 
shortest  predominate  in  chapters  10 — 22  :  16  ;  hence  this  is 
the  oldest  portion.  All  proverbs  of  antithetical  form 
are  genuine  proverbs  of  Solomon.  Those  not  antithetical 
are  a  departure  and  are  later  than  the  age  of  Solomon.  Chap- 
ters 25 :  29  are  next  in  age.  A  few  antithetical  are  still  found 
in  this  section,  but  they  are  exceptional.  As  time  progres- 
ses the  proverl)  loses  in  l)revity  and  force,  and  tends  to 
lengthier  forms.  Hence  parabolic  and  emhJamatic 
proverbs.  They  are  extended  by  lengthening  the  lines 
or  increasing  their  nund)er.  The  next  addition  was  the 
first  nine  chapters  and  the  appendix  of  22:  16-34.  An- 
other stage  is  noted  :  Proverbs  proper  are  exchanged 
for  lengthy  admonitions.  Finally,  in  the  appendices  of 
chapters  30  and  31,  longer  passages  occur  in  pretty  de- 
scriptions of  moral  truths. 

ThisVkv  Fallacious. — The  fallacy  of  this  lies  in  tlie  as- 
sumption that  the  form  of  a  proverb  is  a  criterion  of  its 
age,  and  that  diversities  of  style  are  to  be  traced  to  sepa- 
rate i)eriods,  forgetting  that  a  writer  of  genius  might  use 
different  styles.  Other  styles  of  proverbs  have  quite  as 
good  a  claim  to  be  considered  priuiitive.  Chapters  10- 
22:  16  contain  one  parabolic  proverb.  This  does  not 
justify  tlie  assumption  that  they  were  not  written  l>y 
Solomon. 

(4.)  Delitzsch  thinks  the  title,  "Proverbs  of  Solomon, 
sf'U  of  David,  King  of  Israel,"  does  not  apply  to  the  first 
nine  chapters,  but  to  the  book  as  a  whole.  Chapters 
1-9  are  introductory  to  the  Book  of  Proverbs  proper, 
which  begins  with  chapter  10.  There  was  an  original 
publication  of  three  thousand  proverbs  (I.  Ki.  4 :  32) 
from  which  this  collection  (10 — 22  :  16)  was  made  by  some 
unknown  editor  in  the  reign  of  Jehosliapluit — a  reign 
similar,  in  many  respects,  to  Solomon's.     The  proyerl)ial 


44 


poetry  of  one  period  was  culth'ated  in  the  otlier.  Tlie 
editor  liiinself  prefixed  e]ia[)ter.s  l-i>  and  added  'I'l :  17 — 
24:  22,  giving  to  this  hitter  a  hrief  introduetion  of  its 
own,  ("22  :  17-21.)  Tlie  reasons  Delitzseh  assigns  for  this 
are  scarcely  conclusive.  His  reasons  are:  (a)  A  more 
orderly  arrangement  is  to  be  expected  from  so  wise  a 
king.  But  we  reply  that  no  systematic  arrangement  is 
required,  (h)  Some  jiroverbs  are  repeated,  Ifence  an 
interval  must  hnvo  elapsed  in  wliich  variations  have 
arisen.  These  variations  the  collector  has  preserved. 
To  this  we  answer  that  it  is  quite  easy  to  assume  that 
Solomon  uttered  the  same  proverbs  in  different  forms. 
There  is  one  instance  of  exact  repetition,  14:  12  and  16  : 
25.  This  has  no  bearing  on  the  question.  Witii  slight 
alteration  10  :  1  is  repeated  in  15  :  20 ;  14 :  20  in  19:4; 
16  :  2  in  21  :  2  ;  19  :  5  in  19 :  9 ;  20  :  10  in  20  :  23 ;  21 : 
9  in  21 :  19.  In  other  cases  the  meaning  is  altered.  The 
first  lines  are  alike,  but  not  the  second;  or  the  second, 
but  not  the  first.    ,  .  :  \  ^  t  ( iSsx-O  ^       / 1   (..  -•    ,;,  ,  i      10  :%  .  I 

Delitzseh  admits  affinity  in  diction  between  chapters 
1 — 9  and  10 — 22,  but  contends  that  this  does  not  establish 
an  identity  of  authorship;  for,  (1)  These  repetitions  in 
difi'erent  sections  are  not,  after  all,  similar  in  expression. 
(2)  The  style  is  more  difiuse  and  repetitions  in  the  first 
section  tlian  in  the  second.  But  in  reply  to  this  it  is 
enough  to  say  that  this  grows  out  of  the  ditferent  charac- 
ter of  compositions.  Terseness  fits  the  proverb.  (3) 
The  extended  allegory  of  chapters  7-9,  in  which  Wisdom 
and  Folhj  are  personified,  is  not  fuund  elsewhere.  But 
where  is  the  proof  that  the  author  of  the  first  is  not  the 
author  of  the  second?  The  second  title  is  thoroughly 
justified  if  Solomon  wrote  the  first  section.  Because 
Shakespeare  wrote  sonnets  is  no  argument  that  he  did 
not  write  plays. 

Delitzseh  thinks  that  the  remainder  (24  :  23-34)  was  col- 
lected by  "men  of  Hezekiah,"  being  selected  from  the 
proverl)S  of  other  wise  men.  The  second  collection 
(chapters  25 — 29)   was  intended  for  popular  instruction 


L^-'~hyY\j 


45 


generiilly.  Cluii)tcrs  10 — 24  were  designed  for  the  in- 
strueriou  of  youth,  duty  of  chihlren,  &c.  Then  follows 
the  <luty  of  kings  (in  cliapters  25 — 29.)  Here  tliere  is 
only  one  re[)etltion :  25 :  12  is  re[)eated  from  1  :  9. 
Where  there  is  a  ditferenee  in  form  no  question  arises; 
but  it  is  asked,  wdiy  repeat  identical  proverbs  ?  Answer  : 
There  are  constantly  found  identical  repetitions  in  other 
books,  sacred  and  profane. 

Titles. — The  titles  in  this  l)ook  have  as  much  evidence 
of  originality  and  authority  as  any  titles  can  have.  The 
proverbs  of  the  first  twenty-nine  chapters  are  Solomon's. 
Chapters  25 — 29  were  first  added  to  the  preceding  in  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  collected  from  a  previously  existing 
book.  These  titles  receive  confirmation  in  I.  Kings 
4:32. 

The  Aathorsliij)  of  the  Book. — The  objections  to  Solomon's 
authorship  of  the  work  are  weak.     They  are  : 

(1.)  Xo  one  man  could  ever  have  uttered  so  many  wise 
sayings.  But  the  use  of  a  little  arithmetic  will  show  the 
absurdity  of  this  objection.  The  book  contains  six  hun- 
dred proverbs,  whicii  allows  fifteen  a  year  in  his  reign  of 
forty  years — certainly  not  an  incredible  task.  And  we 
know  from  other  sources  that  he  spoke  three  thousand 
proverbs,  (1  Kings  4  :  32.) 

(2.)  Many  of  these  suppose  an  acquaintance  with 
common  life  not  to  be  expected  in  a  king,  and  they  lay 
stress  on  chastity — an  improbable  feature  in  one  who  had 
so  many  wives.  But  there  is  nothing  incongruous  in 
Solomon's  being  acquainted  with  common  life,  and  his 
own  experience  would  suggest  utterances  on  chastity. 

(3.)  It  is  urged  that  differences  in  style,  structure  and 
language  show  that  the  book  must  be  a  compilation  of 
different  authors.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  admitting  it. 
Sages  spoke  some  of  them.  They  may  have  been  writ- 
ten by  different  authors  and  collected  by  Sokmion.  But 
as  to  actual  differences  of  structure  they  are  very  slight, 
relating,  for  the  most  part,  merely  to  differences  in 
length.     And  if  these  variations  prove  au\'thing  in  sup- 


46 

port  of  tlie  aro'iiinent,  tlioy  prove  that  oiio  may  never  utter 
a  in'overl)  of  more  tliaii  a  certaii>  lengtli.  'J'here  is 
(C/k-V-i-t  evidenee  of  a  plan  indieating  that  it  is  the  work  of  one 
mind.  Dttinite  order  appears,  not  depending-  on  the 
nature  of  tlie  suhjeet,  hut  governed  In-  a  regard  to  ex- 
ternal form.  The  first  section  of  nine  chapters  is  a  kind 
of  introduction  in  praise  of  wisdom.  It  assumes  the 
character  of  a  connected  discourse.  Then  follow  ad- 
monitions, those  of  one  line  first,  then  those  of  gi-eater 
length.  In  the  i)roverbs  Ijy  "  the  men  of  Ilezekiair' 
this  method  is  neglected,  and  the  collection  is  of  a  more 
promiscuous  character.  The  alleged  differences  amount 
to  this,  that  some  wcu'ds  of  (uie  part  are  not  found  in  an- 
other. ' 

(4.)  It  is  claimed,  lastly,  that  confused  arrangement 
and  repetition  are  found  and  are  evidences  of  diversity 
of  authorship.  But  it  may  be  answered  that  while  there 
is  no  systematic  order  there  is  no  confusion.  And  it  is 
more  probable  that  one  person  would  repeat  his  own 
language  than  that  several  writers  would  say  the  same 
thing. 

The  Append i J' — Chapters  30,31. — Tliis  consists  of  two 
chapters — 30,  31.  Each  chapter  has  a  separate  title. 
Chapter  30  :  "  The  words  of  Agur,  the  son  of  Jakeh, 
the  prophecy:  the  man  spake  unto  Ithiel,  even  unto 
Ithiel  and  Ileal."  Chapter  31  :  "  The  words  of  King 
Lemuel,  the  prophecy  that  his  mother  taught  him."  The 
obscurity  of  these  headings  has  perplexed  interpreters. 
Of  the  live  names,  Ithiel  alone  occurs  elsewhere  (Neh. 
11  :  7),  where  it  refers  to  a  diilerent  person.  A  great 
variety  of  modes  of  dealing  with  these  headings  is  sug- 
gested. 

One  critic,  indeed,  boldly  proposes  to  alter  the  text  of 
chapter  30,  and  make  it  read  :  "  Words  of  the  assembly 
of  Jakeh,"  i.  e.,  pious  men.  It  is  also  proposed  to  make 
Masa  reter  to  the  name  of  a  kingdom,  and  to  change  into 
verbs  the  pr()])er  names  which  occur  in  the  latter  }iart  of 
"**       the  verse.     Tlie  heading  of  chapter  31  is  treated  simi- 


y 


.^.£^   >U^bVt^^^^   <^-^ 


47 


larlv.  The  objections  to  all  this  are:  (1)  It  requires  a 
gratuitous  alteration  oftlie  text.  The  business  of  the  in- 
terpreter is  not  to  alter  but  to  explain.  (2)  It  assumes 
the  e.xistence  of  a  kingdom  of  which  we  know  nothing. 
(3)  The  construction  of  tlie  Hebrew  as  altered  is  forced. 

A  second  mode  of  interpretation  assumes  that  the 
names  are  enigmatical  or  symbolical.  It  was  a  prevalent 
opinion  among  the  Jews  that  Agiir  meant  a  collector,  i. 
e.,  of  wisdom  or  wise  sayings.  LetDud  meant  (fcrofcd  to 
God,  and  was  a  })hrase  applied  to  Solomon  or  to  one  of 
his  successors.  Ilahn  undertakes  to  reconcile  this  view 
with  the  alterations  of  the  text  above  referred  to,  and 
makes  Ithiel  mean  "  God  in  me,'"  and  IJcal,  "  I  ant  able,'" 
or  "  I  am  sfrouf/.'" 

The  third  explanation,  and  the  simplest,  supposes  these 
names  to  be  real.  One  chapter,  30,  contains  the  counsels 
of  a  sage  to  the  people.  The  otlier,  31,  those  of  King 
Lemuers  mother  to  him.  The  objections  to  this  are: 
(1)  A  f/jyn/(mf'f!cal  ohjc'cfioH.  The  words  are  not  Lemuel 
///(' king,  but  (/ king.,  (2)  There  is  no  known  Israelitish 
king  of  this  name.  If  real,  he  must  have  been  a  Gentile 
[irince.  But  why,  then,  include  his  writings  in  the 
canon  ?  In  spite  of  these  objections,  however,  it  seems 
best  to  adopt  this  view. 

The  sayings  of  Agur  diiier  considerably  in  form  from 
the  previous  portions  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs.  The 
beauty  of  expression  and  antithesis  are  wanting.  Afiter 
the  tenth  verse  they  consist,  for  the  most  part,  of  single 
lines.  The  others  are  more  extended.  Gha[)ter  31  con- 
tains directions  to  a  king — Lemuel.  This  extends  only 
through  nine  verses.  Verses  10-31  describe  a  virtuous 
woman,  and  are  a^phal)etic  in  structure,  each  success! \'e 
verse  beginning  with  the  letters  of  tlie  alphabet  in  their 
order.  This  is  the  only  portion  of  Proverbs  of  this  sort. 
There  is  a  return  to  the  brief  and  pointed  proverbs.  Two 
Aramaic  forms  occur.  In  verse  2,  Bar  for  Ben,  3riahin. 
for  MHakhn.  But  this  does  not  prove  deterioration  under 
Chaldee  influence.  Similar  forms  occur  in  tlie  writings 
of  David.  vv*    VS'V.*"*-  (•I'V  "^-^vt-  iSnL^y^ 


48 


The  Septaii(/int  Version  of  Proverbs. — The  LXX  trans- 
lators take  liberties  with  the  text  of  this  l)ook.  They 
depart  from  the  Hebrew.  Duplieate  versions  are  g-iven, 
some  proverbs  are  remodeled,  some  omitted,  some  in- 
serted and  new  proverV)S  introduced  ;  and  there  are  also 
some  transpositions.  The  tirst  fourteen  verses  of  chapter 
30  are  put  after  24 :  22,  and  the  remaining  verses  are  put 
after  24:  34.  The  same  thing  ocenrs  in  the  Book  of 
Jeremiah.  Some  find  evidences  of  two  recensions  of  the 
text,  one  in  Palestine,  the  Masoretic  ;  the  other  in  Egypt, 
which  the  LXX  translators  used.  Yet  these  liberties 
taken  with  the  text  in  the  LXX  may  be  due  merely  to  the 
caprice  of  its  translat(.)rs. 


,Mo^P       pjr-^f^      ^ 


CHAPTER  IV. 


ECCLESIASTES. 

1.   GENERAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  BOOK. 

In  many  respects  Eeclesiastes  is  the  most  puzzling  book 
in  the  0.  T.  canon.  The  Hebrew  title,  Kohelcth,  corre- 
sponds to  the  Greek  iJ/:/desk(Ste.s,  Latin  Eeclesiastes^  and 
English  Preacher,  in  the  LXX,  Vulgate  and  Authorized 
Version  respectively.  The  Hebrew  term  is  derived  from 
Kahal  (an  assemble/),  which,  in  turn,  comes  from  a  verb 
signifying  to  call  together,  to  assemble,  just  as  the  English 
cov()rega.tion  and  Latin  Ecclesia  are  derived  from  verbs  of 
similar  signilication.  Preacher  is  therefore  tlie  natunil,, 
as  it  is  the  ancient,  rendering. 

Fanciful  Penderivgs  of  the  Title. — Various  far-fetched 
and  unreasonal)le  renderings  have  been  suggested  : 

(1.)  Some,  for  example,  render  the  words  collector  of 
Proverbs.  They,  therefore,  consider  tlie  book  to  be  a  col- 
lection or  conglomeration  of  wise  sayings.  But  (a)  the 
etymology  of  the  word  showsS  that  it  is  related  to  an 
assembly  of  men,  and  (b)  there  is  a  unity  to  tlie  book 
which  opposesthe  idea  ot  its  being  a  debate.  Hence  this 
view  cannot  be  accepted. 

(2.)  Others  render  it  assembly.  They  ex})lain  the  l)ook 
by  suggesting  that  there  was  probably  an  assembly  ot 
wise  men  convened  \)\  Solomon,  and  of  which  he  was 
the  head ;  and  that  the  book  consists  of  the  debates  of 
this  assembly.  In  reply  to  this  we  affirm  (a)  that  the 
(7)  49 


50 


word  evidently  refers  to  a  }»ersoii  and  not  a  thing,  and 
(b)  that  tlie  view  is  based  on  the  false  assnni})tion  that 
discordant  sentiments  are  expressed  in  tlie  book. 

(3.)  As  the  word  possesses  a  feminine  termination 
some  suggest  that  it  does  not  represent  Solomon  in  his 
own  })erson,  but  imsdom  jjersonificd.  But  certainly  no 
foundation  for  this  is  found  in  the  l)()ok  itself,  M'hile  this 
form  for  abstract  nouns  denoting  offices  is  not  at  all  un- 
common in  Hebrew.  The  advocates  of  the  ancient  view 
claim  that  the  title  is  a  symbolical  designation  of  the 
author  as  a  public  preacher,  addressing  God's  people. 
The  name  Solomon  does  not  occur,  hut  tliat  he  is  in- 
tended l)y  the  title  seems  to  be  manifest  from  the  words 
son  of  David,  Jdng  in  Jerusalem,  (1 :  1),  since  there  is  no 
one  else  to  whom  these  words  can  properly  apply. 

(4.)  It  has  been  suggested  by  one  scholar,  indeed,  that 
the  words  son  of  David  may  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense  as 
indicating  all  the  sons  of  David  till  the  time  of  Hezekiah. 
The  book  is,  therefore,  an  account  of  each  of  these 
princes.  But  what  is  said  of  wisdom  (1 :  16)  and  of 
wealtli  and  temporal  power  (2  :  4-9)  certainly  corresponds 
with  what  is  known  of  Solomon.  This  view,  also  against 
the  generally  acce}>te(l  idea  that  Solomon  is  the  author, 
we  reject  without  refutation. 

2.       AUTHOBSHIP. 

N"o  douht  has  ever  been  expressed  until  recent  times 
that  Solomon  was  the  author.  Arguments  for  this  have 
baen  advanced. 

Siqjposed  Proofs  That  Solomon  Wrote  JEcclesiastes. — These 
are :  (1.)  The  reference  in  1 :  12,  /  the  Preacher  ivas 
King  over  Israel  in  Jerusalem.  Solomon  is  here  supposed 
to  be  referred  to  as  s])eaking  in  the  tirst  person.  (2.)  An- 
other argument  was  found  in  the  fact  that  this  has  always 
been  the  prevalent  view.  So  far  as  we  have  evidence 
concerning  them,  the  Jews  have  always  held  it.  So  the 
Christian  Church.  Only  in  recent  times  have  contrary 
views  been  held.     (3.)  Then,  too,  it  was  assumed  that  the 


flJ^   O't  "T^'.^A.y 


51 

reception  of  tTie  book  into  the  canon  gave  autljentic  con- 
firmation that  the  l)Ook  is  genuine,  that  it  is  what  it  pro- 
fesses to  he,  and  that  it  is,  therefore,  hv  Soh)mon.  An 
infallible  test  of  the  canonicity  of  the  book  is  given  by 
onr  Lord  in  his  sanctioning  the  O.  T.  canon  which  con- 
tained it. 

Tlie  Vlein  of  Grotias. — In  modern  times  Grotins  was 
the  first  to  deny  that  the  book  was  written  l)y  Solomon, 
(Indeed,  there  is  a  random  remark  of  Lnther's,  in  his 
llible  Talk,  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  book,  which 
is  noteworthy  as  looking  in  the  same  direction.  Yet  he 
probably  confuses  Ecciesiastes  witli  Ecdcsiasticus,  since  he 
speaks  of  Sirach  in  connection  with  its  authorship.)  JSince 
Grotius  advanced  his  view  many  German  critics  have 
adopted  it.  These  include  not  only  unbelieving  scholars, 
but  also  some  of  the  soundest  and  aldest  of  Evangelical 
interpreters.  (E.  g.,  Hengstenberg,  Keil ;  and  of  our  own 
scholars,  Moses  Stuart.) 

The  Book  a  Work  of  Fk-iiov. — The  view  of  these  critics 
is  not  that  the  book  is  a  forgery,  issued  in  the  name  of 
Solomon,  and  professing  to  be  from  Solomon,  but  that  it 
is  a  fiction,  in  which  Solomon  is  represented  as  talking, 
and  that  without  the  intention  of  conveying  tlie  idea  that 
he  was  the  author.  They  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that  the 
name  of  Solomon  does  not  occur  in  the  hook,  as  it  does 
in  other  books  of  which  he  is  the  alleged  author.  Tiieir 
idea,  then,  is  that  the  Ijook  was  originally  intended  as  a 
Avork  of  fiction. 

The  AidJiorship  Difficult  to  Decide. — This  question  as  to 
authorship  is  exceedingly  perplexing.  We  may  affirm, 
however,  at  the  outset,  that  only  one  of  the  arguments 
which  have  been  advanced  against  the  claim  that  Solo- 
mon wrote  it  possesses  any  consideral)le  force.  That  is 
the  argument  based  upon  the  language  and  style  of  the  book. 
The  other  arguments  can  be  easily  refuted.  Thus,  for 
example,  we  may  easily,  if  necessary,  answer  the  claim 
that  the  book  is  a  work  of  fiction.  It  is  asserted  that  in 
certain  places  the  fiction  is  transparent,  as  in  the  words, 


52 

/,  the  Preacher^  iras  King  over  Israel  (1  :  12),  wliere  the 
language  appears  8ueh  as  Solomon  could  not  nse  in  speak- 
ing of  himself.  The  argument  is  ])ased  upon  the  use  of 
the  past  tense  in  the  word  ivas.  Again,  it  is  said  that 
the  author  makes  a  formal  statement  of  his  being  a  king, 
as  th(>ugh  the  fact  were  not  generally  known.  But  it  is 
evident  that  all  this  mistakes  the  true  purport  of  the 
verse.  It  is  not  there  meant  to  say  that  Solomon  had 
heen  king,  nor  that  Solomon  had  reigned  in  Jerusalem, 
ill  contrast  with  those  who  reigned  elsewhere ;  l)ut  that 
Solomon  was  king  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time  when  his  ex- 
periments of  human  life  were  being  tried.  The  idea  is 
simply  that  this  trial  was  made  b}^  him  as  a  king,  and  not 
as  an  ordinary  person,  ((J.  2:  12;  2:  25.)  In  fact,  if 
any  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  language  of  1  :  12 
it  Avould  be  on  the  other  side.  Previous  to  the  Schism 
Israel  included  the  twelve  tribes.  Subsequently,  Israel 
denoted  ten  of  the  tribes,  and  Judah  represented  the 
other  two.  If  the  book  were  written  subsequent  to  the 
-Schism,  then  the  author  would  naturally  have  used  the 
words  "  Israel  and  Judah  "  instead  of  "  Israel." 

Farther  Arguments  Considered : — 

(1.)  One  argument  against  the  ancient  view  is  based 
upon  the  reference  to  wealth,  (1 :  16 ;  2  :  7-9.)  The  ob- 
jection here  arises,  (a)  from  the  use  of  the  past  tense  of 
the  verb  in  those  verses ;  (b)  from  the  expression  "All 
that  were  before  me"  (2:  9),  since  there  was  only  one, 
viz.,  David,  who  "  went  before  "  Solomon;  (c)  from  the 
laudation  of  his  wisdom,  which  would  appear  appropriate 
in  another  author,  but  not  in  Solomon,  if  he  is  writing 
concerning  himself. 

But  in  regard  to  this  objection  we  reply  (a),  this  argu- 
ment from  the  use  of  the  past  tense  of  the  verb  is 
groundless.  The  author  is,  in  fact,  speaking  of  what  is 
past  at  the  time  in  which  he  writes.  He  merely  states 
the  conditions  of  his  trial  of  human  prosperity  at  the 
time  that  trial  was  made.  And  then,(b)  as  to  the  second 
consideration  concerning  the  expression  "All  that  were 


53 


before  me,"  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  author  does  not 
say  "All  the  kings  that  were,'"  &c.,  but  ''all,''  i.  e.,  all 
the  people.  There  is  no  need,  therefore,  to  think  that 
heathen  kings  are  referred  to.  The  meaning  is  merely 
that  he  was  wealthier  and  wiser  than  any — kings  or 
people.  No  man  had  ever  been  in  better  worldly  cir- 
cumstances in  which  to  obtain  happiness;  and,  in  order 
to  state  fully  his  experience,  it  is  necessary  for  him  to 
mention  these  conditions.  Besides,  (c),  the  tone  of  the  book 
is  neither  that  of  self-depreciation  on  the  one  hand  nor  of 
self-exaltation  on  the  other.  The  charge  of  undue  lauda- 
tion of  the  author's  wisdom  is  therefore  unfounded.  He 
tells  of  his  unsatisfactory  attempts,  and  of  his  perplexity 
as  well  as  his  success.  He  makes  a  statement  only  of 
what  is  true,  and  that  in  no  boastful  spirit.  Like  Moses 
when  speaking  of  his  own  meekness,  or  Paul  when  refer- 
ring to  the  honor  which  God  had  placed  upon  him,  he 
loses  all  sense  of  self  or  self-praise. 

(2.)*  Another  argument  is  based  on  the  language  of  7  : " 
15 — all  things  have  I  seen  in  the  days  of  my  vanity.  It  is 
argued  from  these  words  that  Solomon's  life  must  have 
been  ended  at  the  time  when  the  book  was  written.  But 
it  would  be  quite  easy  and  natural  for  Solomon  to  speak 
thus  during  his  lifetime  of  himself.  The  argument  is 
altogether  without  force. 

A  Second  Class  of  Objections : — 

(1.)  It  is  alleged  that  views  are  expressed  in  the  book 
which  show  that  Solomon  cannot  be  the  author.  Thus  a 
dark,  gloomy  view  of  human  life  is  shown,  which  could 
have  arisen  onl}'  in  a  time  of  great  national  distress,  and 
not  during  the  period  of  the  prosperous  abundance  ot 
Solomon's  reign.  But  we  reply  by  claiming  (a)  that  it  is 
preposterous  to  think  that  State  or  national  matters 
could  have  to  do  with  such  a  subject  as  is  treated  of  in 
this  composition.  The  book  could  have  been  written  by 
a  king  whatever  the  condition  of  public  affairs  in  his  king- 
dom. And  (b)  this  gloomy  view  of  human  aftairs  may  have 


54 


spruns;  from  a  very  surfeit  of  the  pleasures  which  eartlily 
prosperity  imi)arts. 

(2.)  A  further  objection  of  this  chiss  is  based  upon  the 
language  of  5  :  1 — and  be  more  rea<h/  to  licarihan  to  give  the 
sacrifice  of  fools.  It  is  chiinied  that  this  is  a  depreciation 
of  the  value  of  sacrifice  not  to  be  expected  in  the  l)ui]der 
of  the  Temple.  But  this  is  not  so.  The  language  does 
not  imply  that  sacrifice  is  unimportant,  valueless  or 
wrong,  but  only  that  it  is  inferior  to  a  right  state  of 
heart.  And  certainly  we  could  expect  such  language  from 
Solomon..  God  does  not  despise  sacrifice,  but  he  Avill 
not  accept  it  in  lieu  of  a  right  state  of  heart;  [Vid.  I. 
Sam.  15:  25;  Ps.  50:  7-15.)  " 

(3.)  A  third  objection  is  based  upon  references  to  the  op- 
pressio/i  of  riders  in  certain  passages,  which  oppression,  it  is 
thought,  Solomon  should  have  corrected  rather  than  made 
the  subject  of  his  complaints,  (8:  16;  4:  1 ;  5:  8;  10:  5,-7.) 
But  we  reply  that  apart  from  the  fact  that  no  ruler  {;an 
correct,  in  his  own  kingdom,  all  the  abuses  of  govern- 
ment on  the  part  of  those  in  authority  under  him,  the 
view  of  the  author  here  is  not  really  nor  professedly  con- 
fined to  his  own  aare  or  kina-dom.  The  author  is  takino^ 
a  broad  view  of  life,  and  the  misery  to  which  he  refers 
arises  from  the  existence  of  wicked  rulers  everywhere. 
That  misrule  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  exist  in  his  own 
reign  appears  from  I.  Kings,  12:4. 

(4.)  A  further  objection  is  l)ased  on  7 :  10 — sa//  not  thou 
what  is  the  cause  that  the  former  days  were  better  than  these  ? 
It  is  claimed  that  during  Solomon's  lifetime  affairs  were 
in  reality  more  prosperous  or  "  better"  than  during  any 
"  former  days."  But  we  reply  that  the  "  former  days  " 
refer  to  a  spiritual  rather  than  j)olitical  condition.  Those 
who  are  spiritually  minded  often  find  their  greatest 
trouble  in  times  of  greatest  temporal  wealth  or  })Ower. 
In  the  same  way  the  poet  Horace  praises  the  purity  of 
the  times  of  his  youth. 

(5.)  Again,  it  is  claimed  that  the  book  treats  of  woman  in  a 
way  inconsistent  with  tlie  notorious  fondness  of  Solomon 


^^2.,,^T^4t.     xLcc^ 


55 

for  the  sex;  (  Vkl  7 :  26,  28.)     But  tlie  reply  is  (a)  that  it  .^^^^Q  a 
is  not  the  design  of  tlie  author  to  rebuke  the  entire  class  '"  v 

of  women  ;  and  (h),  concerning  the  degradation  of  those 
women  who  are  degraded  Solomon  certainly  speaks  quite 
as  plainly  in  Proverbs.  Then,  too,  his  own  experience 
may  have  given  rise  to  these  opinions  of  his  concerning 
the  sex.  And  (c)  lastly,  the  language  may  here  be  alle- 
gorical. In  that  case  he  treats  figuratively  of  Folly 
■personified. 

The  Foregoiiui  Ohjedious  Tririal. — These  are  the  leading 
objections  against  the  authorship  of  Solomon,  outside  of 
that  based  on  the  language  and  style  of  the  book.  If  it 
were  not  for  this  latter  they  would  possess  but  little 
force;  and,  in  fact,  they  can  all  l>e  easily  disposed  of  and 
answ^ered,  as  we  have  seen.  But  we  come  now  to  a 
weightier  objection. 

llie  Main  Objection — Language  aral  Style. — The  most 
serious  objection  is  one  based  upon  the  language  and 
style.  It  is  alleged,  and  the  fact  seems  to  be,  that  the 
Hebrew  of  this  book  is  so  Aramean  that  it  must  belong 
to  a  period  later  than  Solomon ;  and  the  style  is  unlike 
that  of  any  other  of  the  writings  of  Solomon.  It  would 
be  tedious  and  useless  to  enter  into  details  here.  It  is 
enough  to  remark  that  in  this  respect  the  book  stands 
alone  in  the  Bible.  Delitzsch  gives  a  long  list  of  such 
Arameanisms,  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  mention,  while 
the  grammar  and  style,  as  already  said,  point  in  this 
direction.  The  same  line  of  argument  is  followed  by 
Ilengstenberg  and  Keil.  ^*,        / 

Only  one  thing  can  be  said  in  answer  to  this.  One  \ 
reason  why  there  are  so  many  Aramean  words  may  arise  1 
from  the  character  of  the  discussion,  which  is  of  a  philo- 
sophic nature.  Again,  Aramaic  forms  are  not  infrequent 
in  some  of  the  oldest  books  of  the  Bible.  And  further, 
Solomon  had  intercourse  with  the  Tyrians,  and  married 
foreign  women,  which  facts  may  account  for  the  Ara- 
meanisms. 

As  to  the  charge  of  diversity  of  style  between  this  book 


56 


and  Proverbs,  it  i^eenis  to  be  true.  Yet  tbere  are  prov- 
erbs in  Ecclesiastes  as  terse,  sententious  and  pointed  as 
in  Proverl)s,  so  tliat  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  if  he  be 
not  Solomon,  must  have  imitated  Solomon. 

One  skeptical  scholar  thinks  that  the  Book  of  Ecclesi- 
astes could  not  be  post-exilic,  for  it  speaks  of  kings.  Its 
origin,  he  claims,  must  be  placed  as  far  back  as  the  time 
of  Solomon,  v^^hile  we  have  the  book  re})rodnced  in  more 
recent  style,  just  as  Shakespeare's  plays  are  slightly  mod- 
ified in  order  to  adapt  them  to  the  stage  of  our  own  day. 
After  all  that  has  been  said,  however,  we  do  not  see  how 
the  argument  from  the  language  can  be  met.  We  con- 
clude, therefore,  that  it  is  decisive.  We  agree  with 
Delitzsch  that  if  the  book  is  Solomon's  we  must  give  up 
everything  like  a  history  of  the  Hebrew  language.  And 
this  is  the  uniform  opinion  of  scholars  at  the  present  time. 

3.       THE    DATE    OF    AUTHORSHIP. 

The  greatest  diversity  of  opinion  exists  as  to  the  date 
of  the  authorship  of  this  book  among  those  who  do 
not  accept  Solomon  as  the  author.  Some  place  it  be- 
fore the  exile,  between  the  reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Zede- 
kiah.  It  is  said  that  the  expressions  used  in  8  :  10  and 
10  :  4,  16-20  are  not  applicable  to  a  later  period,  when 
the  Jews  no  longer  had  a  king.  The  majority  of  inter- 
preters ascribe  it  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  exile. 
Some  place  it  immediately  after  the  return  ;  others  in 
the  time  of  Malachi ;  while  others  refer  it  to  tha  period 
of  Persian  dominion,  or  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  or  place  it  between  Alexander  the  Great  and 
Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Hitzig,  with  great  confidence, 
assigrns  it  to  204  B.  C,  on  the  ground  of  the  use  of  the 
expression  "  oath  of  God,"  (8  :  2),  which,  he  says,  refers 
to  the  oath  exacted  of  the  Jews  by  Ptolemy  Epiphanes. 
In  his  opinion  7 :  10  must  refer  to  the  reigns  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus,  Ptolemy  Lagus  and  Ptolemy  Energetes. 
The  "  little  city  "  mentioned  in  9 :  4  is  said  to  refer  to  a 
city  which  Antiochus  the  Great  failed  to  capture. 


57 


4.       AIM    AND    DESIGN. 

There  is  a  wide  dift'erence  of  opinion  in  regard  to  its 
aim  and  deskpi.  Here,  as  in  Job,  the  occasion  of  the 
divergence  seems  to  lie  in  the  complexity  of  the  book 
itself. 

Different  Vieivs : — 

(1.)  Some  regard  it  as  impossible  to  discover  a  definite 
plan.  Grotius  regards  it  as  a  collection  of  conilicting 
opinions  of  various  sages.  This  opinion  is  based  on  the 
idea  that  the  author  is  a  collector  {Koheletli.)  He  thus 
evades  any  claim  to  its  inspiration,  and  also  explains  ap- 
parent contradictions.  The  collector,  Zerubbabel,  is 
supposed  to  give  the  opinions  of  different  men,  now  on 
one  side,  now  on  another,  but  all  related  to  one  subject, 
namely,  human  happiness. 

(2.)  By  others  the  occasion  is  supposed  to  be  a  debate  in 
an  assembly  over  which  Solomon  presided. 

(3.)  A  third  view  attempts  to  establish  a  unity  by  assum- 
ing that  it  is  a  dialogue  between  an  impetuous  inquirer 
and  a  sage,  who  endeavors  to  curb  the  impetuosity  of 
his  questioner.  This  view  is  adopted  by  Herder,  Eich- 
horn  and  others. 

(4.)  But  all  this  is  unnecessary.  It  is  possible  to  find  in 
the  book  unity  and  a  single  theme.  The  above  theories 
are  arbitrary;  there  is  no  intimation  of  more  than  one 
speaker.  The  same  difficulties  are  met  in  another,  a  fourth 
view,  viz.,  that  instead  of  different  speakers,  different 
states  of  mind  in  the  same  speaker  are  represented,  and 
that  at  the  close  the  speaker  reaches  clear  convictions. 

The  True  View. — The  true  view  is  that  the  book  is  one 
continuous  and  consistent  discussion  with  a  single  aim. 
Yet  a  difference  of  opinion  is  found  even  here  : 

Not  Ascetic. — Some  suppose  a  condemnation  of  too 
exclusive  attention  to  the  vanities  of  the  world.  This 
view  was  used  by  Jerome  in  support  of  monasticism. 
(So  Augustine,  commentators  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
others.) 

Not  Epicurean. — A  second  view,  which  has  been  advo- 
cated by  some  who  adopt  the  general  theory  that  the 


58 


book  possesses  a  sin:^le  design  and  theme,  is  that  its  aim 
is  to  teach  Epicurean  doctrine.  They  charge  the  author 
with  being  Epicurean,  and  base  the  charge  on  the  follow- 
ing passages:  2 :  24;  3:  12,  13 ;  5 :  18^,  19 ;  8 :  15 ;  9 : 
7-10.  But  the  adoption  of  this  view  would  lead  only  to 
endless  confusion.  In  order  to  understand  the  real  pur- 
pose of  the  book,  we  should  not  base  an  opinion  upon 
a  single  class  of  passages.  That  the  above  view  is  false 
appears  immediately  from  passages  like  2  :  1-2  and  11 :  9, 
Those  verses  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  an  Epicurean 
l)elief.  In  fact,  the  object  of  the  former  class  of  passages 
i;s  merely  to  prove  that  there  is  a  law  in  human  life  which 
renders  happiness  the  result  and  accompaniment  of  good- 
Tjieas,  and  that  without  exalting  the  former  over  the  latter. 
Piety  holds  the  key  to  the  chamber  of  happiness.  That 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  book.  And  such  teaching  is  surely 
not  Epicurean. 

Not  Fatalistic. — From  another  class  of  passages  some 
have  inferred  a  third  view,  thsit  the  book  teaches  that  the 
destinies  of  men  are  shaped  by  inexorable  fate.  Such 
passages  are  these  :  1 :  4-11 ;  3  :  1-11,  14,  15  ;  7 :  13  ; 
"8  :  6 ;  9  :  11.  It  is  claimed  that  the  author  teaches  here 
that  the  established  order  of  things  leaves  no  room  for 
the  action  of  the  human  will.  Men  can  only  bow  before 
and  submit  to  the  sway  of  fate. 

This,  of  course,  is  a  distortion  of  tl^e  true  teaching  of 
t^e  bojok.  The  doctrine  is  that  of  the  Divine  Providence 
and  not  of  fate.  The  author  simply  shows  in  the  pas- 
sages named  that  God  has  forever  dissociated  sin  and 
happiness,  and  that  man  cannot  unite  them. 

Future  Jud/jment  not  the  X)istinctive  Doctrine. — A  fourth 
view  magnifies  the  doctrine,  as  taught  in  the  book,  of  a 
future  judgment.  There  are  inequalities  in  the  present 
life,  and  these  are  to  be  rectified  in  the  future.  Such  is 
supposed  to  be  the  all-important  doctrine  of  the  author. 
The  view  is  based  on  the  following  verses :  3:17;  5:8; 
11:  9;  12:  7,  14. 

The  fault  with  this  view  is  that  it  limits  the  theme  to 
too  narrow  a  range.     True,  this  doctrine  is  taught ;  but 


59 


it  is  not  solely  taught.  As  in  Job,  although  the  doctrine 
appears,  yet  it  is  not  the  exclusive  topic. 

Immortality  Not  Denied. — Others,  again,  think  that  the 
book  denies  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The  following- 
passages  are  relied  upon  for  their  proof:  3:  19-21;  9: 
4-6.  " 

This  view  is  based  upon  a  false  interpretation  of  these 
passages,  and  upon  a  failure  to  properly  connect  them 
with  other  portions  of  the  book.  Hence,  of  course,  it  is 
to  be  rejected. 

The  Theme  not  to  he  Unduly  Widened. — Still  another 
view,  a  fifth,  advanced  by  those  who  consider  the  book  to 
be  a  miscellaneous  collection  possessing  neither  a  single 
theme  nor  a  single  design,  is  that  the  book  is  a  presenta- 
tion of  general  rides  for  the  guidance  of  life.  Wisdom  is 
especially  emphasized.  The  following  verses  are  sup- 
posed to  justify  the  view:  4:  9-13;  5:  1-7;  7:  1-9; 
10 :  1-6. 

The  fault  here  is  that  the  treatment  is  made  to  appear 
too  vague  and  indefinite.  In  fact,  the  author  has  but  a 
single  theme  before  him.  True,  there  are  occasional 
digressions ;  but  when  examined  these  digressions  all  ap- 
pear related  to  the  common  topic  evidently  in  the  author's 
mind. 

The  True  View. — This  embraces  all  that  is  true  in  par- 
tial or  one-sided  views.  It  exhibits  all  the  elements  of 
the  book  in  their  proper  relations,  and.  in  due  symmetry 
and  proportion.  The  true  theme  of  the  book  has  been 
already  substantially  stated.  There  is  in  life  a  true  har- 
mony between  goodness  and  happiness.  Job  presents 
the  fiist  apparent  exception  to  that  harmony,  where  a 
good  man  is  represented  as  suffering  from  the  ills  of  life 
for  a  season  ;  while  the  other  exception  is  shown  in  Ec- 
clesiastes,  viz.,  the  apparent  successes  of  evil  men.  Yet 
in  both  books  it  is  shown  that,  after  all,  real  and  lasting 
happiness  is  only  for  the  good.  That  this  is  especially 
shown  in  Ecclesiastes  appears  from  the  following  con- 
siderations : 

Fii^st,  the  doctrine  is  explicitly  stated.     In  8  :  12, 13  we 


60 


read,  "  Tlioiigli  a  sinner  do  evil  an  liundred  times,  and 
his  (lavs  1)0  prolonged,  jet  surely  I  know  that  it  shall  be 
well  with  them  that  fear  God,  which  fear  before  him  : 
But  it  shall  not  be  well  with  the  wicked,  neither  shall  he 
prolong  his  days,  which  are  as  a  shadow;  because  he 
feareth  not  before  God."  That  is  to  say,  not  even  ex- 
ternal or  worldly  happiness  can  be  permanent  in  the  case 
of  the  ungodly. 

St'coiid,  this  aim  and  purpose  are  shown  by  the  testi- 
mony of  the  author,  when  he  states  the  true  doctrine 
fornuilly  at  the  close  of  the  book.  "Let  us  hear  the  con- 
clusion of  the  whole  nuitter :  Fear  God  and  keep  His 
commandments :  For  this  is  the  whole  duty  of  man. 
For  God  shall  l)ring  every  work  into  judgment,  with 
every  secret  tiling,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be 
evil,''  (12 :  13,  14.)  The  clause,  "  For  this  is  the  whole 
duty  of  man,"  properly  rendered,  reads.  For  this  should 
tcerii  man  do.  The  entire  passage  proves  that  it  has  been 
the  result  of  the  author's  experience  that  happiness  re- 
sults t(^  the  good,  and  sorrow  to  the  bad. 

Third,  The  true  purpose  of  the  book  is  stated  by  the 
author  in  sentences  constantly  r.epeated  and  often  referred 
to.  There  are  two  classes  of  these  expressions.  They 
are  to  be  properly  combined  together.  (1.)  The  first 
class  embraces  those  expressions  in  which  the  enjoyments 
of  this  life  are  spoken  of  as  vanity.  "  Striving  after 
vanity"  is  literally  strimag  after  wind;  showing  the  utter 
emptiness  of  worldly  enjoyments  to  the  wicked.  (2.)  The 
second  class  includes  passages  which  are  the  converse  of 
the  above.  They  explain  what  enjoyment  this  present 
life  docs  aiford,  and  how  it  may  be  obtained.  This  is  not 
an  Epicurean  sentiment,  as  we  have  shown.  Eating  and 
drinkinr/  stand,  not  for  the  material  act,  but  for  enjoy- 
ment of  all  kinds.  It  all  amounts  to  saying  that  happi- 
ness is  not  graduated  by  earthly  enjoyments ;  for  the 
ability  to  secure  happiness  is  always  and  solely  a  gift  of 
God. 

And  fourth,  finallg,  the   same  truth  appears  from  an 
analysis  of  the  entire  book. 


A^^>^w.^^f^"-^-^-^-^^^  7^ 


(u/^^^\ 


61 


5.   THE  ANALYSIS  OF  ECCLESIASTES. 

The  following  analysis  is  submitted.  It  may  be  help- 
ful in  endeavoring  to  understand  the  frame-work  of  the 
book.  And  while  it  has  the  name  of  no  author  attached 
to  it,  and  represents  merely  the  lecturer's  own  view,  it 
may  be  suggestive  to  the  student,  as  showing  at  least  one 
method  of  analyzing  the  work: 

Section  I.     Chs.  l-2l^    ,.     . 

V  Preliminary. 
Section  II.  Chs.  3-5  j 

Section  III.  Chs.  6:1-8:  15— Principal  argument. 

Section  IV.  Chs.  8  :  16-12  :  14— Supplementary. 

I.  Chs.  1  and  2— Argument  from  Solomon's  own  ex- 
perience. 

1 :  1-3,  Author  and  general  theme. 

1  :  4-11,  ITniformity  of  sequences  amidst  all  changes. 

1 :  12-18,  General  statement  of  the  character  and  re- 
sults of  Solomon's  experience. 

2 :  1-11,  The  experiment  of  worldly  pleasure  and  its 
failure. 

2 :  12-17,  All  must  be  lost  at  death. 

2 :  18-23,  And  pass  into  the  hands  of  he  knows  not 
whom. 

Conclusion :  2 :  24-26,  Happiness  does  not  arise  from 
worldly  acquisitions,  but  is  the  gift  of  God  to  the  good. 

II.  Chs.  3—5 — Argument  from  Solomon's  observation. 
3  :  1-15,  The  Divine  order  in  the  multifarious  affairs 

of  men. 

3  .  16—4 :  16,  Apparent  inequalities  observed  in  the 
world.  (a)  3:  16,  iniquity  in  judicial  tribunals;  v.  17, 
rectified  by  God's  future  judgment;  vs.  18-22,  tempo- 
rarily permitted  to  teach  men  their  weakness  and  frailty. 

(b)  4 :   1-3,  the  oppression  of  the  weak  by  the  strong. 

(c)  4 :  4-6,  the  envy  attendant  upon  success,  which  yet  is 
no  apology  for  indolence  nor  insatiate  travail,      (d  )4: 


62 

7-12,  folly  and  misery  of  selfish  toil,  (e)  4 :  13-16, 
fickleness  of  popular  favor  however  deserved. 

5  :  1-7,  Such  facts  should  not  seduce  to  irreligion. 

5:  8-17,  Their  explanation  by  an  appeal,  vs.  8,  9  to  a 
superior  tribunal  which  always  exists  to  rectify  abuses, 
and  vss.  10-17,  to  various  considerations,  showing  that  ex- 
ternal prosperity  and  real  welfare  are  not  coincident. 

Conclusion,  5  :  18-20,  Happiness  does  not  arise  from 
worldly  considerations,  but  is  the  gift  of  God. 

III.  6  :  1 — 8  :  1 5 — Principal  argument. 
The  seeming  inequalities  in  Divine  Providence  may  be 
set  at  rest. 

1.  6  :  1 — 7  :  14,  by  a  correct  estimate  of  men's  outward 
fortunes. 

(a.)  6  :  1-12,  prosperity  is  not  always  a  good, 
(b.)  7  :  1-14,  atfliction  is  not  always  an  evil. 

2.  7  :  15 — 29,  by  a  correct  estimate  of  men's  character. 

(a.)  Vs.  16-19,  some  are  righteous  overmuch, 
(b.)  Vs.  20-22,  none  are  perfect  in  deed  and  word, 
(c.)  Vs.  23-29,  real  virtue  is  extremely  rare. 
3_  g  ;  1-13,  by  the  existence  of  a  righteous  government, 
(a.)  Vs.  2-5,  human, 
(b.)  Vs.  6-13,  divine. 
Conclusion,  8  :  14-15,  contented  enjoyment  is  superior 
to  that  outward  good,  which  even  the  wicked  may  possess. 

JY^  g  .  16 — 12  :  14 — Discouragements  removed  and 
practical  duties  enforced. 

8:  16 — 9:  9,  The  remaining  mystery  of  this  subject 
need  not  interfere  with  enjoyment. 

9  :  10 — 11 :  6,  nor  hinder  energetic  action. 

(a.)  9 :  11,  12,  results  do  not  always  correspond  with 
the  means  employed. 

(^^^^  9:  13—10:  20,  but  generally  they  do:  Wisdom 
is  an  advantage,  and  folly  ruins. 

(c.)  11 :  1-6,  this  general  fact  is  a  sufficient  ground 
for  active  exertion. 


63 

11 :  7-12 :  8,  In  all  their  enjoyments  and  actions  men 
shonld  remember  the  coming  judgment. 

Conclusion,  12:  9-14,  Fear  God  and  keep  His  com- 
mandments. 

THE    END. 


1                            •                            1 

DATE  DUE 

■■■'g^P^Fe^ 

m- 

H&iii^^^ 

m 

MAT  5  3  -i 

9 

JUli  1  ^ 

;1395 

' 

GAYLORO 

PRINTKOINU.S.A. 

^•^LS 


